• 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?

Vaibow said:
Honestly, do we have the squad for Europe? No.

Do we want to go to the next level and get a squad for Europe but go no where with it, then have a sloppy season?

Maybe it's just being palace, but I'd rather us build on last season and push for the two domestic cups and top 10 finish.

Yeah, Europe is ok for the fans, but what if we get dog s*** teams, then knocked out by first real good team.. then what have we learnt? I dunno, too many variables for me.
Click to expand...
we've got six midfielders (we play with two) , four wingers and two strikers (we play with one), to have two first XIs we only need three versatile defenders and we could cope.
 
NEILLO said:
You haven't really answered my questions, but let's see if I understand you correctly.

You think that Textor should have sought legal advice. To what end ? He has publicly stated his desire to sell his shareholding for some time now. Which he didn't do. Why ? - it's fair to assume that either he was asking too much or potential buyers ( ironically ) would have wanted more control over the club than he has had.
So, we began last season winless for the first 8 games and in the bottom 3 in the League. European qualification via a league position highly unlikely. That leaves the Carabao and FA cups as potential routes. Are you suggesting that Textor should have placed his shares into a Blind Trust well in advance of the 1/3/25 deadline ? Because that was the only solution available if he couldn't sell his shares. So I contend that progression in the cup is of relevance.

Highlighted Para 1 - You have NO evidence of disciplinary action do you ? You are interpreting events without any base for your statements '' strongly indicates '' is your opinion, nothing more.
Highlighted Para 2 - How do you know that the argument wasn't accepted ? The meeting in Nyon was to enable Palace to put their case forward. UEFA then stated they needed until end of June to consider and will pass judgement then. So from my perspective they neither accepted or rejected Palace's position.
Highlighted Para 3 - It comes back to the same question. What was Textor meant to do and when ?? really interested to hear your thoughts.
Highlighted Para 4 - Asking for clarification is not interfering if indeed that's all they did.

Fair enough for standing by your 2nd consolation point - but bear in my that Glasner's mentality is of a highly competitive nature. Oh, and he's won the Europa League previously. I doubt he would agree with you.
Click to expand...
UEFA's laws, rules and guidelines have not been set up to catch out football directors and chairmen. They have their own internal logic and purpose. There is a constant flow of information from UEFA to professional football clubs. If Textor had acted in accordance with UEFA's MCO rules (and the March deadline date) Palace would not be in this situation. However, he felt that there was no need to put his shares into a blind trust, but clearly there was. He might not agree with it, but that was what he should have done. But, at the very least, he should have requested that the ECA act as an intermediary in order to establish clarification about UEFA's MCO rules regarding Palace's distribution of shares and its voting rights. But he chose not to use the ECA for the very purpose that it was established.

You ask me when should Textor have put his Palace shares into a blind trust? Given UEFA's misgivings about MCO, and the heightened risks involved for multi-club owners, it should have been set up before the March deadline date, which was a clear statement of intent by UEFA that they are now hardening their stance on this matter.

Everything I write is merely an opinion. You are perfectly at liberty to agree with it or disagree with it. If what you state is the correct assessment of the situation, then so be it - and well done to you for being so astute; but I stand by my own opinion ... and until the full facts are established, I shall continue to do so.

However, I think there is one thing that we can agree on, and that is if Textor's 43% share had also meant he had 43% of the voting rights Palace would probably now be laden with a huge amount of debt.
 
blind trust wouldnt have changed his % vote , uefa cant get there head around how our board is set up , they only look at one thing they dont like complexed cases , because of its set up for whats best for a club , there tiny minds cant handle it
 
Jason Smith said:
UEFA's laws, rules and guidelines have not been set up to catch out football directors and chairmen. They have their own internal logic and purpose. There is a constant flow of information from UEFA to professional football clubs. If Textor had acted in accordance with UEFA's MCO rules (and the March deadline date) Palace would not be in this situation. However, he felt that there was no need to put his shares into a blind trust, but clearly there was. He might not agree with it, but that was what he should have done. But, at the very least, he should have requested that the ECA act as an intermediary in order to establish clarification about UEFA's MCO rules regarding Palace's distribution of shares and its voting rights. But he chose not to use the ECA for the very purpose that it was established.

You ask me when should Textor have put his Palace shares into a blind trust? Given UEFA's misgivings about MCO, and the heightened risks involved for multi-club owners, it should have been set up before the March deadline date, which was a clear statement of intent by UEFA that they are now hardening their stance on this matter.

Everything I write is merely an opinion. You are perfectly at liberty to agree with it or disagree with it. If what you state is the correct assessment of the situation, then so be it - and well done to you for being so astute; but I stand by my own opinion ... and until the full facts are established, I shall continue to do so.

However, I think there is one thing that we can agree on, and that is if Textor's 43% share had also meant he had 43% of the voting rights Palace would probably now be laden with a huge amount of debt.
Click to expand...
Textor has been trying to sell his shares in Palace for nearly 2 years. Putting your shares in a Blind Trust means you have no control over them, not a great idea if you are trying to sell them.

On this point I don't blame Textor.
 
I think complacency was the big issue for Textor. Early in the year, we were miles away from winning anything, and our league position wasn't anything to shout about.
When I was running my own small business, with regards to financial planning (done every few months), there would always be the "what if something unexpected happens" scenario put in, so we had risk to a minimum.
Being kind to Textor, you would say it was an oversight, or a risk he was willing to take, because it was a real long shot winning the FA cup, or storming up the Premier League.
Being pragmatic, it was a major fck-up by Textor, especially when you consider the amounts of money involved, and the situation Palace are in now. Fine, if it was just his money he was playing the odds with. But having everyone else's money attached to his poor decision-making is the real ball-ache here. Let's hope Textor can find a way out of Palace, before he causes any more damage.
 
Last edited:
Forest Hillbilly said:
I think complacency was the big issue for Textor. Early in the year, we were miles away from winning anything, and our league position wasn't anything to shout about.
When I was running my own small business, with regards to financial planning (done every few months), there would always be the "what if something unexpected happens" scenario put in, so we had risk to a minimum.
Being kind to Textor, you would say it was an oversight, or a risk he was willing to take, because it was a real long shot winning the FA cup, or storming up the Premier League.
Being pragmatic, it was a major fck-up by Textor, especially when you consider the amounts of money involved, and the situation Palace are in now. Fine, if it was just his money he was playing the odds with. But having everyone else's money attached to his poor decision-making is the real ball-ache here. Let's hope Textor can find a way of of Palace, before he causes any more damage.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this, I’m not sure how true it was that he wanted to buy Everton earlier in the year, but the guy seems to be a complete loose canon. Sort of encompasses what I think about Americans in general.
 
look everything being said on here was in hindsight , did any of us say anything before the fa cup final even before the 1st of march , no all been hindsight statements , if i worked for a school friend i would have been a millionaire now hindsight , great isnt it
 
Jason Smith said:
UEFA's laws, rules and guidelines have not been set up to catch out football directors and chairmen. They have their own internal logic and purpose. There is a constant flow of information from UEFA to professional football clubs. If Textor had acted in accordance with UEFA's MCO rules (and the March deadline date) Palace would not be in this situation. However, he felt that there was no need to put his shares into a blind trust, but clearly there was. He might not agree with it, but that was what he should have done. But, at the very least, he should have requested that the ECA act as an intermediary in order to establish clarification about UEFA's MCO rules regarding Palace's distribution of shares and its voting rights. But he chose not to use the ECA for the very purpose that it was established.

You ask me when should Textor have put his Palace shares into a blind trust? Given UEFA's misgivings about MCO, and the heightened risks involved for multi-club owners, it should have been set up before the March deadline date, which was a clear statement of intent by UEFA that they are now hardening their stance on this matter.

Everything I write is merely an opinion. You are perfectly at liberty to agree with it or disagree with it. If what you state is the correct assessment of the situation, then so be it - and well done to you for being so astute; but I stand by my own opinion ... and until the full facts are established, I shall continue to do so.

However, I think there is one thing that we can agree on, and that is if Textor's 43% share had also meant he had 43% of the voting rights Palace would probably now be laden with a huge amount of debt.
Click to expand...
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.
 
When we were watching Palace dispose of Millwall (1st March-ish) everyone's thoughts were on getting the job done, JP being OK after GBH from the wall keeper & who we might draw in the next round - I can forgive anyone pretty much anything for not making administrative arrangements on the off chance that we just might win the FA Cup.

The only area I have an issue with not being in the ECA is that if we were a member when this blew up
(a month or so ago) we could have sought their advice prior to SP / JT travelling to FIFA / UEFA to present our defence case, maybe any advice that they could have given could have in some way shaped our defence arguments - or maybe not, but if we didn't / weren't able to ask them, then well we wont ever know.
 
Last edited:
I am glad that Textor is on his way out? Yes very

Am I glad we may not be playing in Europe. No.

But it may be the case that the latter was the price we had to pay for the former. And imo we’ll be well rid of him given the trail of destruction he’s left at other clubs.
 
Jason Smith said:
Nasser bin Ghanim Al-Khelaifi is not unprincipled, John Textor is; and he is clearly frustrated with Textor's mishandling of Lyon.

The ECA functions as the sole intermediary between UEFA, FIFA and European clubs.
Click to expand...

A function that is, I'm sure very nice for all concerned, but not actually necessary as shown by Parish, Harris, Blitzer and Textor meeting with UEFA directly. No intermediary involved.

A meeting at which they could show Textor had only 25% voting rights and no decisive control. And plenty of examples of how that has played out in reality such as Palace voting against Textor's interests at the Premier League meetings.

And I think taking a decision like this based on a dislike of someone as you suggest is reprehensible, especially when that person in about 3 weeks time will no longer be part of the club Nasser bin Ghanim Al-Khelaifi is, according to your post, keen to sanction. Does he hate Textor or hate Palace? If Textor has gone (legally binding) why would he want to punish Palace?
 
I have changed opinions a couple of times over this weekend, as to what UEFA's decision will be. Currently, I think Palace might actually be OK.
I thank everyone for their experienced and considered opinions, which have enlightened me as to the financial operations of a football club and their obligations.
I think the big positive to come out of this, is expose Textor's financial clumsiness. And big gratitude to Steve Parish for limiting Textor's influence at the club, in spite of Textor's massive amount of shares.

Hopefully Textor will be gone by the end of the Summer and in the meantime Palace can concentrate fully on next season, and hopefully a trek into Europe, which should settle the Manager and the squad. .... and the fans 😀
 
Last edited:
NEILLO said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is again a very troubling point if this decision goes against us.

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 ''.

If this is was always going to catch out the smaller clubs is that by accident or by design?

If by design then it is unfair and discriminatory. A way to exclude smaller clubs and favour larger clubs historically likely to qualify for Europe. Moving towards a closed shop. I thought UEFA disliked the idea of the super league proposed by Barca, R Madrid and Juventus? And yet here they are creating rules to limit those who can qualify for their competitions. Intentional or incompetent?
 
Forest Hillbilly said:
I think complacency was the big issue for Textor. Early in the year, we were miles away from winning anything, and our league position wasn't anything to shout about.
When I was running my own small business, with regards to financial planning (done every few months), there would always be the "what if something unexpected happens" scenario put in, so we had risk to a minimum.
Being kind to Textor, you would say it was an oversight, or a risk he was willing to take, because it was a real long shot winning the FA cup, or storming up the Premier League.
Being pragmatic, it was a major fck-up by Textor, especially when you consider the amounts of money involved, and the situation Palace are in now. Fine, if it was just his money he was playing the odds with. But having everyone else's money attached to his poor decision-making is the real ball-ache here. Let's hope Textor can find a way out of Palace, before he causes any more damage.
Click to expand...
I don't see it as '' complacency ''.

In any business, big or small, risk is regularly assessed - as indeed you used to do.

Part of that would have been the likelihood of an event occuring. And when it would most likely have an impact.

So in this case, if we agree that the only solution, short of selling his shares, to remove any doubt around breaking the MCO rules, was to place Textor's shares into a Blind Trust, at what point in the season ? We didn't win a League game for the first two months.

If you risk assessed the situation again in February, what would you have done ? An improved League position and still 4 potential FA Cup ties to be played before winning it - for the first time.

I'm no fan of Textor but I don't see this as being all of his making.

Let's hope the facts present themselves once all this is over !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top