Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

Willo said:
I fully understand the rationale behind your rhetorical question.😀
I accept that on many occasions I have been a glumster on HOL, a chap not over-burdened with positivity.
I am in that territory apropos our prospects next season.
Click to expand...

it's worked well for us over the last 10 years so don't go changing!
 
Teddy Eagle said:
Not quite the worst.
1. Glasner gets the hump and leaves.
2. Eze, Guehi, Munoz & Mateta are sold.
3. The squad is knackered from travelling/playing in a third tier European competition.
4. Johnson turns out to be worse than Textor.
Click to expand...
Happy Days 😳
 
well isnt it getting exciting , in fighting , name calling , poking out of tongue and going nanana , god grow up , I still believe we have a strong case ,
uefa didnt except our way of running a football club , because there small minded look after the boys type people who are millions in debt ,
im in Liverpool territory and to a man they have all said this is a joke totally wrong , so we have alots of support from other clubs on this ,
So why is there a need for us to fight with each other , and try and blame everyman and his dog for whats happened , none of us said anything about mco until whats happened , because we believed it didnt effect us , so all give yourselfs pat on the back for wonderful hindsight
 
Eaglecoops said:
I think this is becoming over complicated. The fundamental reason for UEFA’s rules in this situation is an attempt to stop multi club ownership encouraging a position where match fixing can occur through decisive influence at more than one club in the same competition.

As at 1st March 2025 did Textor have decisive influence at Lyon, yes. Did Textor have decisive influence at Palace at the same date, no.

UEFA must look at the Palace board structure rather than rigidly applying their own share ownership percentages rules because it is the Palace structure that would prevent Textor from the possibility of influencing a Palace result and not the number of shares held.

Of course, the situation has now become ridiculous in that a ball has not been kicked in the competition and the potential protagonist no longer has any influence at Palace so UEFA’s doomsday scenario simply cannot happen.

So what is UEFA’s problem? Palace can already show that:

1) As at 1st March the Palace board structure prevented Textor from having decisive influence in the club.

2) Prior to the competition beginning Textor has been removed altogether and therefore there is no possibility of him influencing any games through multi club ownership.

To punish Palace for something that has never happened and is never going to happen seems utterly ludicrous and I would hope that CAS sees it this way.
Click to expand...
I wonder if some of this might not be down to UEFA applying Swiss legal principles to an English corporate structure?

Now, that will over-complicate matters.
 
Last edited:
NEILLO said:
UEFA's stance is totally based around their share ownership rules. So no amount of proof that Textor had no decisive influence, of which there must be plenty, is going to make them shift their position.

Having an arbitrary deadline of March 1st for their rule evasion makes no sense given that their competitions don't start for another 5 months after that date.

If common sense was to prevail here, which I think is what Steve Parish is rather optimistically hoping for, UEFA could agree that the only real transgression in all this is a missed date.

In which case I don't think the punishment fits the crime. Especially when it is rumoured that UEFA are now looking at amending their rules in light of recent events.
Click to expand...

Clearly Textor didn't have any day to day influence at Palace, which is the whole point of the MCO rules.

However, there is also a technical argument that SP has alluded to.

Whilst we all know this blind Trust rule is a joke as the owner is clearly still the decision maker just from a distance (just like Trump putting his interests in a blind trust run by his kids), but it all seems to hinge on this 1st March date.

Well this rule date only changed in late Feb making the legal changes almost impossible by this deadline.

I have checked Companies House and NF Football Investments which fatboy Evangelos Marinakis owns and is the ultimate owner of Forest changed his ownership on 29/4/25 - almost 2 months after the 1st March deadline. Supposedly UEFA accepted this as he informed them of the intention to change ownership beforehand. As Forest didn't qualify for the Champions League the change has now become obsolete and he has just changed it back, but the point remains.

Well as Textor has been trying to sell his shares for over a year and tried to buy Everton surely the intention is evidenced here too.

So UEFA changed its rules late and made it impossible for any club to legally comply with this rule.

That is a strong argument for any appeal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top