Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

I think I have worked out why UEFA have decided to relegate us. It’s all down to Texor’s position with Lyon, and has nothing to do with us directly. Article 5.01 (c) of their rules says:-

“No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition, such control or influence being defined in this context as:
  1. holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights;
  2. having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club;
  3. being a shareholder and alone controlling a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights pursuant to an agreement entered into with other shareholders of the club; or
  4. being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club.”

Whilst none of those definitions applied to his position at Palace they did at Lyon.

The rules in Article 5.02 being what happens next:-

“If two or more clubs fail to meet the criteria aimed at ensuring the integrity of the competition, only one of them may be admitted to a UEFA club competition, in accordance with the following criteria (applicable in descending order) with the exception of the scenarios set out in Paragraph 5.04 and Paragraph 5.05:
  1. the club which qualifies on sporting merit for the most prestigious UEFA club competition (i.e., in descending order: UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League or UEFA Conference League);
  2. the club which was ranked highest in its domestic championship;
  3. the club whose association is ranked highest in the access list (see Annex A).”

Thus although Lyon was the club where Textor held the offending control, they take precedence over Palace because of their league position.

Grossly unfair it might be as no conflict ever existed and certainly doesn’t now. Which UEFA probably accept but are hogtied by their own rules.

The best chance of redemption might be through the UEFA chairman overruling his committee but then he risks being sued by Forest. CAS might determine that the rule is so badly worded that it doesn’t achieve its intended purpose so must be struck out.

Clutching at straws though.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
I think I have worked out why UEFA have decided to relegate us. It’s all down to Texor’s position with Lyon, and has nothing to do with us directly. Article 5.01 (c) of their rules says:-

“No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition, such control or influence being defined in this context as:
  1. holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights;
  2. having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club;
  3. being a shareholder and alone controlling a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights pursuant to an agreement entered into with other shareholders of the club; or
  4. being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club.”

Whilst none of those definitions applied to his position at Palace they did at Lyon.

The rules in Article 5.02 being what happens next:-

“If two or more clubs fail to meet the criteria aimed at ensuring the integrity of the competition, only one of them may be admitted to a UEFA club competition, in accordance with the following criteria (applicable in descending order) with the exception of the scenarios set out in Paragraph 5.04 and Paragraph 5.05:
  1. the club which qualifies on sporting merit for the most prestigious UEFA club competition (i.e., in descending order: UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League or UEFA Conference League);
  2. the club which was ranked highest in its domestic championship;
  3. the club whose association is ranked highest in the access list (see Annex A).”

Thus although Lyon was the club where Textor held the offending control, they take precedence over Palace because of their league position.

Grossly unfair it might be as no conflict ever existed and certainly doesn’t now. Which UEFA probably accept but are hogtied by their own rules.

The best chance of redemption might be through the UEFA chairman overruling his committee but then he risks being sued by Forest. CAS might determine that the rule is so badly worded that it doesn’t achieve its intended purpose so must be struck out.

Clutching at straws though.
Click to expand...
As it says, “If two or more clubs fail to meet the criteria …” Only with Lyon did Textor, “… exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club.” If he had ‘decisive influence’ at Palace also, he would have been in violation of these regulations.
 
Last edited:
As I have understood it, Textor should have registered a potential conflict of interest by March 31st - a date brought forward by UEFA at short notice. As no one else had a conflict of interest, this was down to him. It seems to me our best hope will lie in arguing that in the particular circumstances of the case - where failure to abide by UEFA rules rather than any actual conflict of interest seems to be the issue - the culpable party is not being punished; indeed he might feel that he has successfully spited Parrish whom I I don't think he ever forgave for refusing to bail Lyons out a couple of years ago. UEFA's rules are deficient I suspect in failing specifically to address the consequences of a sale of interests such as has occurred here. While I can see that the sale cannot be retrospectively applied to what should have happened at the end of March; it clearly should be taken into account when determining which club should be penalised.
 
Charles said:
As I have understood it, Textor should have registered a potential conflict of interest by March 31st - a date brought forward by UEFA at short notice. As no one else had a conflict of interest, this was down to him. It seems to me our best hope will lie in arguing that in the particular circumstances of the case - where failure to abide by UEFA rules rather than any actual conflict of interest seems to be the issue - the culpable party is not being punished; indeed he might feel that he has successfully spited Parrish whom I I don't think he ever forgave for refusing to bail Lyons out a couple of years ago. UEFA's rules are deficient I suspect in failing specifically to address the consequences of a sale of interests such as has occurred here. While I can see that the sale cannot be retrospectively applied to what should have happened at the end of March; it clearly should be taken into account when determining which club should be penalised.
Click to expand...
March 1st!

The difficulty is though that Textor was trying to sell his shares at this point and had been for about a year. If you then put your shares into blind trust you essentially block yourself from selling your shares.

Who knows what his long term plans were? Perhaps he was still hopeful of buying Parish out.
 
Gary St.Andrews said:
Does anyone know what Lyon’s punishment was in all this seeing as Textor had much more influence on the running of this club? How they have got away with is seems even more bizarre!
Click to expand...
There is no punishment for Lyon. It is totally absurd that a team that has been financially mismanaged by a majority shareholder, that should have been thrown out of the league, is permitted to stay in a competition at the expense of a club that is well managed and where the protagonist was not a majority shareholder.

The arguments have been done to death and the situation proven unjust, we just wait to see if CAS agrees.
 
im reading the media about players that they sold for us , but no sign of any offers , im getting a strange feeling the players dont want to go while the club is fighting this , and have another crack at lge and cups with us , I maybe wrong but would have thought someone would have gone by now😍
 
mtp1958 said:
im reading the media about players that they sold for us , but no sign of any offers , im getting a strange feeling the players dont want to go while the club is fighting this , and have another crack at lge and cups with us , I maybe wrong but would have thought someone would have gone by now😍
Click to expand...
Or the club have told the players "we won't be doing any transfer business until this is resolved". Let's hope UEFA string this out til 2026.
 
Eaglecoops said:
There is no punishment for Lyon. It is totally absurd that a team that has been financially mismanaged by a majority shareholder, that should have been thrown out of the league, is permitted to stay in a competition at the expense of a club that is well managed and where the protagonist was not a majority shareholder.

The arguments have been done to death and the situation proven unjust, we just wait to see if CAS agrees.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. Punishment was relegation but end up with no punishment even though issues 🤯
 
Jason Smith said:
As it says, “If two or more clubs fail to meet the criteria …” Only with Lyon did Textor, “… exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club.” If he had ‘decisive influence’ at Palace also, he would have been in violation of these regulations.
Click to expand...
I see what you mean and it’s a strong argument that I expect our lawyers will use. It doesn’t though explain why UEFA took their decision, which suggests to me they don’t interpret it that way. Unless and until their actual ruling is made public, which doesn’t seem very likely until every legal process is complete, we won’t know. The lawyers will though.

It seems both Lyon and Olympiacos were tipped off that the March 1st deadline for compliance was going to be extended so long as it could be shown that the process was underway. Thus both Textor and Marinakis knew, but Parish could not have done, unless Textor told him. Not that it would have enabled him to do anything.

It might explain Textor’s reaction immediately after we won the Cup though and why he was scrambling not just to sell his shares in Palace but also to distance himself from day to day control at Lyon.

It stinks! Will the FA now get involved? Could they request all Premier League clubs to refuse entry into the Europa League on the basis of league position so Palace could participate? Forest would refuse but be shown to be the pariah they deserve to be.

Could this end with Palace suing Textor for failing in his duties as a Director to always put the financial interests of the club above his personal interests?
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
I think I have worked out why UEFA have decided to relegate us. It’s all down to Texor’s position with Lyon, and has nothing to do with us directly. Article 5.01 (c) of their rules says:-

“No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition, such control or influence being defined in this context as:
  1. holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights;
  2. having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club;
  3. being a shareholder and alone controlling a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights pursuant to an agreement entered into with other shareholders of the club; or
  4. being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club.”

Whilst none of those definitions applied to his position at Palace they did at Lyon.

The rules in Article 5.02 being what happens next:-

“If two or more clubs fail to meet the criteria aimed at ensuring the integrity of the competition, only one of them may be admitted to a UEFA club competition, in accordance with the following criteria (applicable in descending order) with the exception of the scenarios set out in Paragraph 5.04 and Paragraph 5.05:
  1. the club which qualifies on sporting merit for the most prestigious UEFA club competition (i.e., in descending order: UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League or UEFA Conference League);
  2. the club which was ranked highest in its domestic championship;
  3. the club whose association is ranked highest in the access list (see Annex A).”

Thus although Lyon was the club where Textor held the offending control, they take precedence over Palace because of their league position.

Grossly unfair it might be as no conflict ever existed and certainly doesn’t now. Which UEFA probably accept but are hogtied by their own rules.

The best chance of redemption might be through the UEFA chairman overruling his committee but then he risks being sued by Forest. CAS might determine that the rule is so badly worded that it doesn’t achieve its intended purpose so must be struck out.

Clutching at straws though.
Click to expand...
Surely the argument is that there was only one club failing to meet the criteria.
 
Jason Smith said:
As it says, “If two or more clubs fail to meet the criteria …” Only with Lyon did Textor, “… exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club.” If he had ‘decisive influence’ at Palace also, he would have been in violation of these regulations.
Click to expand...
Apologies, read this after posting.

Two or more are BOTH right.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
I think I have worked out why UEFA have decided to relegate us. It’s all down to Texor’s position with Lyon, and has nothing to do with us directly. Article 5.01 (c) of their rules says:-

“No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition, such control or influence being defined in this context as:
  1. holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights;
  2. having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club;
  3. being a shareholder and alone controlling a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights pursuant to an agreement entered into with other shareholders of the club; or
  4. being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club.”

Whilst none of those definitions applied to his position at Palace they did at Lyon.

The rules in Article 5.02 being what happens next:-

“If two or more clubs fail to meet the criteria aimed at ensuring the integrity of the competition, only one of them may be admitted to a UEFA club competition, in accordance with the following criteria (applicable in descending order) with the exception of the scenarios set out in Paragraph 5.04 and Paragraph 5.05:
  1. the club which qualifies on sporting merit for the most prestigious UEFA club competition (i.e., in descending order: UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League or UEFA Conference League);
  2. the club which was ranked highest in its domestic championship;
  3. the club whose association is ranked highest in the access list (see Annex A).”

Thus although Lyon was the club where Textor held the offending control, they take precedence over Palace because of their league position.

Grossly unfair it might be as no conflict ever existed and certainly doesn’t now. Which UEFA probably accept but are hogtied by their own rules.

The best chance of redemption might be through the UEFA chairman overruling his committee but then he risks being sued by Forest. CAS might determine that the rule is so badly worded that it doesn’t achieve its intended purpose so must be struck out.

Clutching at straws though.
Click to expand...
I might be wrong here, but I assume our whole defence centres around this bit:
“If two or more clubs fail to meet the criteria aimed at ensuring the integrity of the competition, only one of them may be admitted to a UEFA club competition . . ."
With Parish & CPFC saying that whilst Textor at Lyon could have been described as having majority control, that wasn't the case at CPFC, so it wasn't two or more clubs, and in which case the statements that follow are null and void.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
I see what you mean and it’s a strong argument that I expect our lawyers will use. It doesn’t though explain why UEFA took their decision, which suggests to me they don’t interpret it that way. Unless and until their actual ruling is made public, which doesn’t seem very likely until every legal process is complete, we won’t know. The lawyers will though.

It seems both Lyon and Olympiacos were tipped off that the March 1st deadline for compliance was going to be extended so long as it could be shown that the process was underway. Thus both Textor and Marinakis knew, but Parish could not have done, unless Textor told him. Not that it would have enabled him to do anything.

It might explain Textor’s reaction immediately after we won the Cup though and why he was scrambling not just to sell his shares in Palace but also to distance himself from day to day control at Lyon.

It stinks! Will the FA now get involved? Could they request all Premier League clubs to refuse entry into the Europa League on the basis of league position so Palace could participate? Forest would refuse but be shown to be the pariah they deserve to be.

Could this end with Palace suing Textor for failing in his duties as a Director to always put the financial interests of the club above his personal interests?
Click to expand...

is the tipping off scenario just essentially reminding people of the rules, which admittedly were changed from the previous year.
However, if this was the case surely Textor just had to inform them he was trying to sell his shares in Palace.

So is the UEFA argument that he never responded to the 'tip off' or that the sale took longer than they were prepared to wait?
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
I see what you mean and it’s a strong argument that I expect our lawyers will use. It doesn’t though explain why UEFA took their decision, which suggests to me they don’t interpret it that way. Unless and until their actual ruling is made public, which doesn’t seem very likely until every legal process is complete, we won’t know. The lawyers will though.

It seems both Lyon and Olympiacos were tipped off that the March 1st deadline for compliance was going to be extended so long as it could be shown that the process was underway. Thus both Textor and Marinakis knew, but Parish could not have done, unless Textor told him. Not that it would have enabled him to do anything.

It might explain Textor’s reaction immediately after we won the Cup though and why he was scrambling not just to sell his shares in Palace but also to distance himself from day to day control at Lyon.

It stinks! Will the FA now get involved? Could they request all Premier League clubs to refuse entry into the Europa League on the basis of league position so Palace could participate? Forest would refuse but be shown to be the pariah they deserve to be.

Could this end with Palace suing Textor for failing in his duties as a Director to always put the financial interests of the club above his personal interests?
Click to expand...
I think the relationship between the club secretary, Christine Dowdeswell, and the principal directors has not been explained. Her role is a key one in this whole saga.

I do believe it’s easy for us to see John Textor as the villain in all this, but he’s more the fall guy who’s found himself up against a powerful network of vested interests.

It will be interesting to read UEFA’s legal reasoning for both finding that Textor breached MCO regulations and also their reasoning in demoting us to the CL, which I am sure any competent lawyer will tear to shreds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top