Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

[Spindle]

This from Kieran Magiure:

“This email was sent by the Football Association to all Premier League club secretaries in October 2024 advising them of changes to rules relating to UEFA Multi Club ownership rules. It would be difficult for a Premier League club to deny they receive emails from the FA.”

And, in my humble opinion, this is conclusive proof that Steve Parsh and John Textor have just fed us a load of BS!

Having said that, I have no doubt that UEFA did send emails to info@cpfc.co.uk but that was probably because they had heard nothing from any of the directors. I just wish we could access that attachment.

But it's irrelevant because we have never considered ourselves MCO, Textor was selling the stake from Eagle of which he owned 51% therefore 24% of Palace, with a 25% voting right, and he never made the decisions. UEFA are using a technicality and not providing any mitigation or common sense of interpretation, and they're doing it because they are mates with the fat greek and they want Lyon in.

It IS corruption, do you seriously believe that they'd throw out Man Utd, for example?

 

[Putitout]

Anecdotally, I have always taken the email thing with a pinch of salt. I don't honestly believe the top bods of a Premier League football club are reactive to adhoc emails from UEFA, you'd expect them to be on top of rule changes for any competitions they are in, or could be in. If people on this forum were just able to Google the rules I'd expect a top football to be on top of stuff like this. Not that this is about apportioning blame, I think we've been rogered by some badly worded rules and a cowardly governing body but the email thing is something I don't feel is relevant to our case.

It’s pretty obvious in hind sight the club slipped up, but until it was to late anyway, we didn’t appear to have a cat in hells chance of winning anything So why would they have gone to considerable lengths to cover us for something that in the moment was not likely to apply? Only after we beat Fulham did it seem an outside chance of the cup, and it was an outside chance, we had never done it before and a team that put Five past us only weeks before still in the mix.
In further mitigation Parish, says very clearly, he the club had absolutely no connection with Lyon, not even a Phone number, nothing. If true it makes a mockery of Uefa ,its rules , and its application of those rules.

 

[Jason Smith]

But it's irrelevant because we have never considered ourselves MCO, Textor was selling the stake from Eagle of which he owned 51% therefore 24% of Palace, with a 25% voting right, and he never made the decisions. UEFA are using a technicality and not providing any mitigation or common sense of interpretation, and they're doing it because they are mates with the fat greek and they want Lyon in.

It IS corruption, do you seriously believe that they'd throw out Man Utd, for example?

I know it reeks of corruption, but that is not the point. The Palace directors have to protect their business interests, but they didn’t follow up and get suitable clarification regarding the way the club is run.

And if it goes to CAS, all this will come out in their detailed findings.

 

[pssguy]

I look forward to the start of the season when we can argue again about whether Kamada is any good.

Good one. We actually should start discussing Kamada now as he only has a year to go on his contract, I believe, and we either sign him up or see him running out his contract. Haven't heard anyone is in for him!

 

[chris123]

I know it reeks of corruption, but that is not the point. The Palace directors have to protect their business interests, but they didn’t follow up and get suitable clarification regarding the way the club is run.

And if it goes to CAS, all this will come out in their detailed findings.

The FA email must have been on our boards radar.

 

[pssguy]

I know it reeks of corruption, but that is not the point. The Palace directors have to protect their business interests, but they didn’t follow up and get suitable clarification regarding the way the club is run.

And if it goes to CAS, all this will come out in their detailed findings.

Exactly. If you feel you are dealing with a corrupt organization, you should do everything you can do to mitigate it. Palace didn't and are suffering the consequences

 

[Lanzo-Ad]

I know it reeks of corruption, but that is not the point. The Palace directors have to protect their business interests, but they didn’t follow up and get suitable clarification regarding the way the club is run.

And if it goes to CAS, all this will come out in their detailed findings.

Which is the whole problem in a nutshell. so as i have said we wont appeal, but hope for UEFA to change their mind, by someone in UEFA intervening.

 

[Lanzo-Ad]

But it's irrelevant because we have never considered ourselves MCO, Textor was selling the stake from Eagle of which he owned 51% therefore 24% of Palace, with a 25% voting right, and he never made the decisions. UEFA are using a technicality and not providing any mitigation or common sense of interpretation, and they're doing it because they are mates with the fat greek and they want Lyon in.

It IS corruption, do you seriously believe that they'd throw out Man Utd, for example?

Just a question, do you think Palace are at fault about anything, we know UEFA are corrupt, but have we helped them by not replying to them, and given their corrupt nature a way out.

 

[Eaglecoops]

Just a question, do you think Palace are at fault about anything, we know UEFA are corrupt, but have we helped them by not replying to them, and given their corrupt nature a way out.

Parish clearly thought that for numerous reasons we were not in breach of their rules which is a matter of interpretation of their rule and their justification for wanting to implement it given our slightly different circumstances to other clubs.

If you just ask the question as to whether we did what they suggested clubs should do then clearly the answer is no we didn’t, however Im assuming that’s because we didn’t think it was necessary to do so.

 

[silvertop]

they did it for Lyon, they had already been relegated before the March 1 deadline pending their becoming compliant with the French authorities, were found to be in breach of French rules AFTER March 1 and were given time to appeal, before their successful appeal AFTER March 1 we were in the Europa League.

Lyon's process was domestic and not EUFA/CAS.

Their successful appeal means they were never relegated. It never happened.

Lyon did not have to be compliant with anything before or after 1 March. They could be in blatant breach; but EUFA rules say one goes in of the conflicting pair and that has to be the highest placed in their respective leagues.

BTW I liked the superficial attraction from another poster of that rule being interpreted as Lyon coming 6th in their league and Palace coming first in our competition so we should be the one going through. A shame it doesn't work like that.

 

[Jason Smith]

Just a question, do you think Palace are at fault about anything, we know UEFA are corrupt, but have we helped them by not replying to them, and given their corrupt nature a way out.

I think you’ve answered your own question.

The worst thing that Textor could have done was to sit on his hands and hope it never happens, but life has a way of never being that predictable. And as much as Parish has no influence over the business interests of both Blitzer and Textor, he has an overall responsibility for ensuring these complex and sensitive issues do not have an adverse impact on the club. Needless to say, I think they were probably all lured into a false sense of security.

And the key issue, for me, is that neither Blitzer nor Textor sought suitable advice from the ECA, which would have required from UEFA a communique of expressed intent regarding Crystal Palace and MCO.

 

[Eaglecoops]

I think you’ve answered your own question.

The worst thing that Textor could have done was to sit on his hands and hope it never happens, but life has a way of never being that predictable. And as much as Parish has no influence over the business interests of both Blitzer and Textor, he has an overall responsibility for ensuring these complex and sensitive issues do not have an adverse impact on the club. Needless to say, I think they were probably all lured into a false sense of security.

And the key issue, for me, is that neither Blitzer nor Textor sought suitable advice from the ECA, which would have required from UEFA a communique of expressed intent regarding Crystal Palace and MCO.

To my knowledge we have no affiliation to ECA, is that not correct?

 

[Jason Smith]

To my knowledge we have no affiliation to ECA, is that not correct?

We don’t, but Lyon and Brondby are members.

 

[Eaglecoops]

We don’t, but Lyon and Brondby are members.

Yes, but Parish runs Palace, not Blitzer or Textor which is the whole point and UEFA have already decided that Blitzer doesn’t have a decisive decision making holding at Palace. This is why I said that this is about interpretation of rules rather than breaking of rules.

 

[Jason Smith]

Yes, but Parish runs Palace, not Blitzer or Textor which is the whole point and UEFA have already decided that Blitzer doesn’t have a decisive decision making holding at Palace. This is why I said that this is about interpretation of rules rather than breaking of rules.

The buck stops with Steve Parish. He has to take an active interest in anything that might have an adverse impact on the club. He knew where UEFA are going with this issue.

 

[Car54]

Not looking so funny now is it est1905, or should that be know all, big mouth
Hahahaha,
You any idea how pathetic that sounds?
UEFA secretary: Sir its that little South London club on the phone again.
UEFA official: What do they want this time?
U.S.: They just want another catch up, they call it 'getting their criteria right'
U.O.: In regards what/
U.S.: I think they just want to get all their ducks in a row and make sure everything is ok for when (or if) they ever qualify for European football.
U.O.: They do realise that they have never won a domestic trophy never mind played in Europe Except for that time they played in the Intertoto and went out in the first round?
Cue entire office floor falling about laughing.


No clue mate. Not a one!

 

[Eaglecoops]

The buck stops with Steve Parish. He has to take an active interest in anything that might have an adverse impact on the club. He knew where UEFA are going with this issue.

Of course, you can’t argue against the buck stopping with Parish however the way Palace is set up doesn’t follow traditional forms and as far as Parish would have been concerned, each main Director has a 25% controlling interest and he also has the casting vote, so by using the same UEFA rules that they have applied to the Blitzer situation, Textor would not have a decisive controlling interest in Palace and therefore there would be no issue.

These numbers have of course been done to death however you can see why Parish would think Palace have done nothing wrong.

This is about UEFA making our management structure look like something it isn’t and this is why it’s unjust.

 

[Jason Smith]

Of course, you can’t argue against the buck stopping with Parish however the way Palace is set up doesn’t follow traditional forms and as far as Parish would have been concerned, each main Director has a 25% controlling interest and he also has the casting vote, so by using the same UEFA rules that they have applied to the Blitzer situation, Textor would not have a decisive controlling interest in Palace and therefore there would be no issue.

These numbers have of course been done to death however you can see why Parish would think Palace have done nothing wrong.

This is about UEFA making our management structure look like something it isn’t and this is why it’s unjust.

I’m not going to repeat what I’ve already said. But there’s that other issue of honesty and transparency; and I do not believe either Parish nor Textor have told us the truth about those UEFA communications.

 

[Palace in the Blood]

Yes, but Parish runs Palace, not Blitzer or Textor which is the whole point and UEFA have already decided that Blitzer doesn’t have a decisive decision making holding at Palace. This is why I said that this is about interpretation of rules rather than breaking of rules.

I think this is about Textor and we are caught in crossfire. He has admitted he didn't deal with politics of France/Europe well. I think it possible that UEFA will decide to review their position but is unlikely, however I suspect conversations are going on. As they have shown in previous cases they have wide latitude to compromise.
I suspect it will go to CAS the fact they have immediately changed rules will go against them as it effectively proves rules were unworkable. The loans / purchases by forest Lyon and Butafago show some possible cooperation between Eagle and Forest. Yet we have sold one player and are considered part of an MCO. The fact Textor is no longer a director and his sales are gone may give the area for compromise ie we are reinstated The court will ask which other clubs complied by 1st March who had not already qualified or were expected too. The Irish club had qualified so they were in breach so they can't be a precedent. But had Roma and Everton? My view is CAS will reinstate us and possibly give a penalty to ensure UEFA do not look totally stupid

 

[Eaglecoops]

I’m not going to repeat what I’ve already said. But there’s that other issue of honesty and transparency; and I do not believe either Parish nor Textor have told us the truth about those UEFA communications.

Bit of a red herring in my opinion. The communications are not really the important issues here and possibly wouldn’t even be brought up in an appeal. I don’t trust Textor at all and he may well have made stuff up to suit his narrative. Not sure Parish would however.

Not trying to argue with you by the way, it’s just the way I see it.