Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

[Dogburger]

Have we appealed yet? If we are going to do it, if not show intentions that we are, and if we are not say so, and why not, Parish cannot let fans protest, if there is no appeal, he has to make a statement

I never thought we would get thrown out of the EL and was quite relaxed about it until the French league started calling the shots . It started to dawn on me that UEFA had interpreted MCO in a way that I and many others were not . That we were in fact part of Textors MCO group
Our directors have dropped the ball on this , they should have been across it and done what it appears every other club in Europe have done and made up a situation that would satisfy UEFA's mad rules .

But they didn't so they haven't got a leg to stand on I will be surprised if Parish appeals which means the way things are playing out he will . 🙄

 

[Eaglecoops]

The relationship between Palace and Brondby isn't an issue. Blitzer owns 18% of Palace - you need minimum 30% for UEFA to assume you have "influence" in the club so it's a non issue.

Also if we stay in the Conference League then so be it. Don't get why anyone would withdraw from that tournament?! We, the fans, get to still go on European trips - of which I am still buzzing about given that has never been a possibility before. Secondly, if we win the Conference League (which given our financial superiority over the teams in the tournament, we should expect to win it) then we qualify for Europa League next season. And given Glasner's history in cup competitions, that might be the easiest route to Europa League.

It is an issue for Brondby. At the moment UEFA have said both teams can go through, however this is in direct contradiction to their own rules relating to Palace and Lyon where Palace have been trumped by Lyon’s higher league position. If they apply the same rules to Palace and Brondby then Brondby would be out.

You are forgetting that this (according to UEFA’s rules) is not about percentage of ownership, it’s about breaching the MCO rule for having any relationship with two clubs in the same comp.

Of course, we all know this is nonsense because UEFA appear to be applying parts of their rules where it suits them and ignoring parts of them when it suits them.

Quite simply if you follow the same logic they did with Palace and Lyon then Brondby should not be in the Conference League as we have finally found a tournament where winning the FA Cup trumps coming lord knows where in the Danish League.

 

[Eaglecoops]

I never thought we would get thrown out of the EL and was quite relaxed about it until the French league started calling the shots . It started to dawn on me that UEFA had interpreted MCO in a way that I and many others were not . That we were in fact part of Textors MCO group
Our directors have dropped the ball on this , they should have been across it and done what it appears every other club in Europe have done and made up a situation that would satisfy UEFA's mad rules .

But they didn't so they haven't got a leg to stand on I will be surprised if Parish appeals which means the way things are playing out he will . 🙄

UEFA are interpreting their own rules differently dependent upon who they are dealing with. This is clearly wrong, unjust, however you want to describe it and should be shown up for what it is.

 

[martinelliff]

I wonder if UEFA said to Parish, “if you don’t appeal the verdict we won’t look into the relationship between Palace and Brondby.”

In theory the Blitzer situation could be grounds for a successful CAS appeal. The thing about the date we have categorically breached so have no arguement other than it being stupid since when we start the competition textor has no shares. But stupid is not a valid legal argument. However if they are ignoring their rules to allow us and Brondby in the Conference then why can't they for us and Lyon in Europa? They are breaking their own rules so the rules should be disregarded, a CAS win.

 

[Eaglecoops]

In theory the Blitzer situation could be grounds for a successful CAS appeal. The thing about the date we have categorically breached so have no arguement other than it being stupid since when we start the competition textor has no shares. But stupid is not a valid legal argument. However if they are ignoring their rules to allow us and Brondby in the Conference then why can't they for us and Lyon in Europa? They are breaking their own rules so the rules should be disregarded, a CAS win.

Yes we breached the date however we fundamentally disagree with the fact that Palace broke MCO rules. This is a case of making this March date more important than the reasoning behind why the rule is there in the first place, which is to stop potential corruption. Yes, we missed a date if we needed to submit some dodgy paperwork that we didn’t consider was necessary for our club. We have a company structure in place that prevents our partial owner causing a MCO breach and that should satisfy UEFA’s concerns, however apparently it doesn’t.

This difference in interpretation does not justify in any shape or form throwing Palace out of the EL and this is exactly Parish’s point. If UEFA can point to the damage or potential damage we have caused by our now gone multi club owner then fine, throw us out, but they won’t be able to.

The punishment does not match the breach of rule.

 

[Canterbury Palace]

Regarding the lack of an appeal, my theory is that we're waiting for the Premier League to ratify Woody Johnson taking over and leaving it as late as possible because of that. If that can be confirmed before we appeal then surely it will massively strengthen our case as not only can be say that Textor never had decisive control but we can also say that he is no longer ever at the club.

 

[Eagleman13]

Nothing would fill me with more joy to see Forest relegated this season, their resources overstretched as a result of playing in the Europa league. Nothing against Forest fans, but their owner is a weasel, sending out letters to uefa trying to get us banned.

I tend to disagree with you on the bit in bold, i would put him more at 'Elephant Seal' proportions personally. 😉

 

[Lanzo-Ad]

The main thing is it is not complicated at all.😳

 

[SurbsEagle]

It is an issue for Brondby. At the moment UEFA have said both teams can go through, however this is in direct contradiction to their own rules relating to Palace and Lyon where Palace have been trumped by Lyon’s higher league position. If they apply the same rules to Palace and Brondby then Brondby would be out.

You are forgetting that this (according to UEFA’s rules) is not about percentage of ownership, it’s about breaching the MCO rule for having any relationship with two clubs in the same comp.

Of course, we all know this is nonsense because UEFA appear to be applying parts of their rules where it suits them and ignoring parts of them when it suits them.

Quite simply if you follow the same logic they did with Palace and Lyon then Brondby should not be in the Conference League as we have finally found a tournament where winning the FA Cup trumps coming lord knows where in the Danish League.

I believe UEFA have stated themselves that the threshold was minimum 30% ownership stake for it to be considered an influential ownership. Therefore they don't deem there to be a conflict of interest as Blitzer only owns 18% of Palace.

 

[SurbsEagle]

FYI - there was a guy on TalkSport yesterday who said that Palace have formally appealed to the CAS but are getting our legal case in order so that the appeal is as successful as possible.
TalkSh*te normally doesn't interest me but this was actually quite an interesting listen and gives a solid perspective on the whole thing.

 

[SurbsEagle]

We will be competing against teams who finished far higher in their respective leagues than we did in the PL. There are teams from Spain,Italy and France who ended their seasons between 6th and 8th.

Not sure that's an accurate measurement for how good your team is. Premier League is far superior in terms of both financials and competitiveness. Therefore, if Palace were to play in Italy, Spain or France, I would expect us to challenge for the top 6 each season in all of those leagues.

 

[Lanzo-Ad]

I don't think it is anything to do with Multi club ownership, % of shares or voting rights, Blind trust etc, it is all because we did not see the email so didn't respond to UEFA to sort out a plan, possible extension, like Forest, or any communication, for me that is the issue.

 

[Jason Smith]

I believe UEFA have stated themselves that the threshold was minimum 30% ownership stake for it to be considered an influential ownership. Therefore they don't deem there to be a conflict of interest as Blitzer only owns 18% of Palace.

Everything is back to front with Palace: Steve Parish owns the least shares, but has the most power. Textor owns the most shares, but has the least power. This case is definitely ‘’sui generis’!

 

[Common Sense Club]

Everything is back to front with Palace: Steve Parish owns the least shares, but has the most power. Textor owns the most shares, but has the least power. This case is definitely ‘’sui generis’!

I agree and that’s why UEFA cannot understand the situation. They’re thick. In addition I assume that the Palace structure is a legally binding one recorded somewhere and maybe even logged at Companies House. I would have thought that a legal fact would outway a mere UEFA rule.

 

[Willo]

Not sure that's an accurate measurement for how good your team is. Premier League is far superior in terms of both financials and competitiveness. Therefore, if Palace were to play in Italy, Spain or France, I would expect us to challenge for the top 6 each season in all of those leagues.

The point I was trying to make is that the Conference League is not awash with obscure, second-rate teams and that we should expect to win the competition.
Whether we would finish in the top 6 in Spain or Italy is a matter for debate and I suspect diametrically opposed views would come to the fore.

 

[Eaglecoops]

I believe UEFA have stated themselves that the threshold was minimum 30% ownership stake for it to be considered an influential ownership. Therefore they don't deem there to be a conflict of interest as Blitzer only owns 18% of Palace.

Yes, you are right, from what they have said there is a 30% threshold, but they also say that ANY link between two clubs is unacceptable and then they say that the link has to be decisive, but then they decide that Textors 51% share of 43% of Palace shares is decisive and that his 25% voting rights are decisive despite them saying 30% is the figure.

The point is, they haven’t got a clue and appear to be making it up as they go along. What I said above about the reasoning behind the rule SHOULD be way more important than anything else.

 

[NEILLO]

I agree and that’s why UEFA cannot understand the situation. They’re thick. In addition I assume that the Palace structure is a legally binding one recorded somewhere and maybe even logged at Companies House. I would have thought that a legal fact would outway a mere UEFA rule.

If you believe anything that Textor says, during his appearance on TalkSport last week he claimed that he signed a document that was basically an agreement that he would accept that Parish runs the club and has the final say in club matters

 

[NEILLO]

I don't think it is anything to do with Multi club ownership, % of shares or voting rights, Blind trust etc, it is all because we did not see the email so didn't respond to UEFA to sort out a plan, possible extension, like Forest, or any communication, for me that is the issue.

As I wrote earlier, the email scenario is an area that could have been handled better.

 

[mtp1958]

I don't think it is anything to do with Multi club ownership, % of shares or voting rights, Blind trust etc, it is all because we did not see the email so didn't respond to UEFA to sort out a plan, possible extension, like Forest, or any communication, for me that is the issue.

I can see your point , and yes 1st march we didnt contact to ask the best way to cheat , but I have dealt with rules and regulation most of my life in one way or another , there rule is open to wrong interpretation , our club structure is something they dont understand , thats why they didnt like it , they want you to put shares in a blind trust , that you still own but in secret , but still have control , so are we in breach I dont believe we are , we wont know until it all comes out in the wash

 

[Jason Smith]

I agree and that’s why UEFA cannot understand the situation. They’re thick. In addition I assume that the Palace structure is a legally binding one recorded somewhere and maybe even logged at Companies House. I would have thought that a legal fact would outway a mere UEFA rule.

No wonder, as Textor said, a UEFA official pulled him aside, in the lunch break, and tried to pin on him decisive influence regarding the signing of Glasner. They’re looking for the smoking gun that will justify their predetermined outcome!