Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

NMPalace said:
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?
Click to expand...
If I understand things correctly both Lyon and Olympiacos belong to an association which gave them a tip off that UEFA wouldn’t apply the March 1st deadline rigorously if they could see steps underway to correct problems. Neither Palace nor Forest are members but Marinakis owns Olympiacos so would have known anyway. Parish relied on Textor whose conflict of interest is clear.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
If I understand things correctly both Lyon and Olympiacos belong to an association which gave them a tip off that UEFA wouldn’t apply the March 1st deadline rigorously if they could see steps underway to correct problems. Neither Palace nor Forest are members but Marinakis owns Olympiacos so would have known anyway. Parish relied on Textor whose conflict of interest is clear.
Click to expand...
Within the ECA there are three levels of membership: founding members: Olympiacos and Lyon are both founding members. These are the most powerful clubs within the ECA; and even if they drop out of UEFA competitions altogether (like Rangers once did) they retain their elite membership status: a bit like being a permanent member of the Security Council. These clubs are also ordinary members. These are clubs that regularly qualify for UEFA competitions. The third category is associated members. These are clubs that occasionally qualify, or who have previously won a major European trophy. Notts Forest is an associated member.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
If I understand things correctly both Lyon and Olympiacos belong to an association which gave them a tip off that UEFA wouldn’t apply the March 1st deadline rigorously if they could see steps underway to correct problems. Neither Palace nor Forest are members but Marinakis owns Olympiacos so would have known anyway. Parish relied on Textor whose conflict of interest is clear.
Click to expand...

ok , makes sense.

However, surely Textor trying to sell his shares, as he was for c12 months, is the evidence that UEFA needed i.e. we were taking steps to correct the problem.
 
NMPalace said:
ok , makes sense.

However, surely Textor trying to sell his shares, as he was for c12 months, is the evidence that UEFA needed i.e. we were taking steps to correct the problem.
Click to expand...
It should form part of Palaces evidence and you would think that Textor would have made the point at the June meeting in Nyon.

That wasn’t necessarily taking steps to solve the problem though - although of course had the shares been sold that would have resolved the problem before both clubs qualified for the EL.

So the fact we are facing an appeal to CAS means that UEFA did not accept Textors intended sale as a resolution
 
I have found out from Stefan Borson: “It would be helpful to see the CFCB’s reasons for their decision, but sadly this is not available publicly.”

In relation to correspondence being generated after the 1st of March, he also made the point: “Yes, I think Crystal Palace are well aware of the CFCB’s position, and have failed to discharge their view. This is the problem.”

Borson believes there has to be correspondence: “Looking at the Red Bull case I think it is very likely CFCB did, in fact, fully investigate post 1st of March.” Well, where’s the evidence? As I have previously stated, Palace could sue UEFA if there is no correspondence that would justify bringing the deadline forwards to the 1st of March. However, Borson doesn’t agree with that, either: “There won't be any case vs UEFA for any negligence etc. The best outcome is Palace get their place back. Nothing else.”

And this is why I have previously accused Stefan Borson of sticking to a very narrow narrative. It then becomes an exercise in damage limitation for the hierarchy of vested interests. Whereas suing UEFA would blow wide open this whole corrupt network!

No wonder he said to me, “I don’t understand your point re: 1st of March.” He knows perfectly well what I am saying, and if the Red Bull case generated extensive correspondence, then that would be proof positive that Palace have been set up - period!
 
Last edited:
Jason Smith said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'd personally be interested to learn if Parish or the other owners did ask Textor to comply on March 1st. Parish said in his interview 'we had no power to force John Textor to place his shares in a blind trust. We are therefore unable to comply with that rule whether we felt it relevant to us or not'
I do wonder though if Parish even asked to question of Textor. Its been well documented that relations between Parish and Textor had become frosty. When there's an atmosphere between two egos that are in business together you have to pick the right moment to ask a favour or let them feel like you're doing them one!
 
waterfordpal said:
Does anyone actually know (not guessing) WHEN the appeal is being heard please ?
Click to expand...
Palace's lawyers are unlikely to have launched an appeal yet as they only received the written reasons for exclusion from UEFA last Friday. If they have launched the appeal CAS will not have had time to work out when the case can be heard and give Palace a date yet.
I'd imagine it'll be within a week or so as draws for UEFA's competitions are due in early August
 
est1905 said:
I'd personally be interested to learn if Parish or the other owners did ask Textor to comply on March 1st. Parish said in his interview 'we had no power to force John Textor to place his shares in a blind trust. We are therefore unable to comply with that rule whether we felt it relevant to us or not'
I do wonder though if Parish even asked to question of Textor. Its been well documented that relations between Parish and Textor had become frosty. When there's an atmosphere between two egos that are in business together you have to pick the right moment to ask a favour or let them feel like you're doing them one!
Click to expand...
And that is why Christine Dowdeswell is the club secretary, not Steve Parish. It’s her primary responsibility to ensure all the directors are compliant with MCO regulations.
 
est1905 said:
I'd personally be interested to learn if Parish or the other owners did ask Textor to comply on March 1st. Parish said in his interview 'we had no power to force John Textor to place his shares in a blind trust. We are therefore unable to comply with that rule whether we felt it relevant to us or not'
I do wonder though if Parish even asked to question of Textor. Its been well documented that relations between Parish and Textor had become frosty. When there's an atmosphere between two egos that are in business together you have to pick the right moment to ask a favour or let them feel like you're doing them one!
Click to expand...
Your reading to much into it , if that was the issue Johnson wouldn't have brought the shares
 
NEILLO said:
It should form part of Palaces evidence and you would think that Textor would have made the point at the June meeting in Nyon.

That wasn’t necessarily taking steps to solve the problem though - although of course had the shares been sold that would have resolved the problem before both clubs qualified for the EL.

So the fact we are facing an appeal to CAS means that UEFA did not accept Textors intended sale as a resolution
Click to expand...
Textor resigned as a Director on June 18th.

CPFC LIMITED people - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

CPFC LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity
find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk
 
NEILLO said:
It should form part of Palaces evidence and you would think that Textor would have made the point at the June meeting in Nyon.

That wasn’t necessarily taking steps to solve the problem though - although of course had the shares been sold that would have resolved the problem before both clubs qualified for the EL.

So the fact we are facing an appeal to CAS means that UEFA did not accept Textors intended sale as a resolution
Click to expand...
This of course all assumes that we were actually doing anything with regard to a 1st March date as a large part of our defence will surely be that we were never part of a MCO group and the 1st March date is irrelevant.

There are two or 3 different directions that our defence can go but without knowing the detail of our exclusion we can’t really guess which direction will be used. I would hope it’s all in hand, but would really like to see some more detail.
 
mtp1958 said:
Your reading to much into it , if that was the issue Johnson wouldn't have brought the shares
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't he? Johnson gets on very well with Josh Harris and Parish says he has only met the guy a few times but thinks he's a top bloke that wanted only to help in this situation. This is why he accelerated his purchase of Textor's shares instead of letting the sale go through at a snails pace like many of them do.
He felt by sitting in Textor's chair by the time the UEFA cup starts it can only help Palace's cause.
Personally I dont think the question of whether Textor was actually asked to put his shares in a blind trust or not has a thing to do with whether Woody Johnson would have bought Textor's shares or not.
You dont pay £190m for something unless you really want it. Johnson would have bought a stake in Palace regardless who he was buying from.
 
est1905 said:
Why wouldn't he? Johnson gets on very well with Josh Harris and Parish says he has only met the guy a few times but thinks he's a top bloke that wanted only to help in this situation. This is why he accelerated his purchase of Textor's shares instead of letting the sale go through at a snails pace like many of them do.
He felt by sitting in Textor's chair by the time the UEFA cup starts it can only help Palace's cause.
Personally I dont think the question of whether Textor was actually asked to put his shares in a blind trust or not has a thing to do with whether Woody Johnson would have bought Textor's shares or not.
You dont pay £190m for something unless you really want it. Johnson would have bought a stake in Palace regardless who he was buying from.
Click to expand...
Why would Textor think there was a problem on the afternoon of 17th May? At that point Lyon were relegated to Ligue 2, a fact confirmed the following month by the French Football authorities. It was only on 9th July that Lyon were reinstated into both Ligue 1 and the Europa League. So what did Textor know was going to happen after our FA Cup win that would ensure that Lyon would succeed whilst Palace would fail? Something doesn’t stack up.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Textor resigned as a Director on June 18th.

CPFC LIMITED people - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

CPFC LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual return, officers, charges, business activity
find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk
Click to expand...
Irrelevant- at the Nyon meeting he apparently offered to put his shares into a Blind Trust immediately. UEFA said it made no difference- it all hinges on that ridiculous 1/3 date, when according to them we weren’t compliant
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top