Palace potentially denied entry to Europa League?

Eaglecoops said:
Surely CAS need to look at the intention behind this part of the UEFA rules which is to prevent a situation where collusion/match fixing can occur.

They decided to refer to criteria that defines when someone is in such a position and they have in our case at least, referred to share ownership and a certain level of share ownership.

On that basis we certainly are in breach if they consider over 30% is the threshold, however they have completely ignored the fact that firstly Palace do not consider themselves to be part of an MCO club and secondly, the management set up within Palace prevented Textor from having decisive control within the club and therefore their objective of preventing a position where a result could be influenced has already been met.

This has to be their primary concern otherwise it’s just a rule for rules sake and is not universally appropriate. Mitigation of potential risk in any match between Lyon and Palace has already been met and I would hope CAS considers this point favourably.

Just one of the arguments, however in my opinion an important one nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Without seeing the detailed reasoning that UEFA have provided to Palace (only a summarised Press Release has been made public) it’s impossible to know what caused them to reach their view, but if it is a 30% threshold then we will win!

If you read their regulations it’s very clear that this is not the threshold, despite all the reports to the contrary. Rule 5.01 being the relevant section. Here it is:-

Article 5 Integrity of the competition/multi-club ownership​


5.01
To ensure the integrity of the UEFA club competitions (i.e. UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League and UEFA Conference League), the club must be able to prove that as at 1 March 2025 the below multi-club ownership criteria were met and the club must continue to comply with the below criteria from that date until the end of the competition season:

  1. No club participating in a UEFA club competition may, either directly or indirectly:
    1. hold or deal in the securities or shares of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition;
    2. be a member of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition;
    3. be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition; or
    4. have any power whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition.
  2. No one may simultaneously be involved, either directly or indirectly, in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition.
  3. 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.

We can ignore items 1 and 2. The club itself does not conflict with those requirements.

Item 3 concerns individuals, in our case, Textor. Subsections, 1,2 and 3 do not apply. Only subsection 4 could. 30% ownership does not appear. Only “decisive influence” does as the threshold.

It has been suggested that the 30% figure appears elsewhere in UEFA guidelines to determine when share ownership becomes decisive but it is not in the regulations.

In Textor’s case although he indirectly held 43% of the shares he held only 25% of the voting rights and his frustration at not having any decisive influence is well documented.

My conclusion is therefore that we do not conflict with subsection 4. either and that UEFA must have incorrectly interpreted their own regulations.

Further, that as we have never transgressed the regulations there was no need for us to react to, or acknowledge any communication from UEFA regarding a 1st March deadline.

I think we have a very strong case. Without any references to either Forest or Lyon.
 
pssguy said:
What a weird notion. Of course lawyers will take on cases they have a good chance of losing. It pays the bills.
As there is only a win or loss in court, a lawyer who only takes on those where there is a 95% chance of winning would not get much business. There is no loss of reputation in losing a case where the odds are stacked against you. Would Palace's reputation take a massive knock if we lost an away game against PSG?
Click to expand...
Here lies your lack of legal knowledge at the highest level. At the top level lawyers pick and choose their cases and dont need to 'pay the bills'. Any lawyer that needs the money would not get anywhere near this case. Its high profile and the media are all over it. I have family in the legal profession. I know what I'm talking about. Sure, there are thousands of cases out there that lawyers take that have little chance. These are usually taken on by duty solicitors or ambulance chasers. In other words the Lidl or Aldi end of the market. Top end? Nope, sorry. This will have top guys on it. Top guys that intend to win and would not take it on unless they believed they would.
In terms of a weird notion I would say comparing a legal challenge to a football match is not just weird its idiotic
 
It depends on what you consider by the word "Win".

CAS could reinstate us into the Europa league because UEFA were too harsh.

UEFA will then argue that they won because:

"CAS has upheld our right to sanction clubs that do not obey the MC rules".

Palace will argue:

"We won because CAS has reinstated us which is all we were asking for."

Take you pick.
 
mtp1958 said:
As Wisbech has said rules and laws are two different things ,
I was rules secretary at my local golf club , that involved the understanding how to apply a rule correctly , and in golf you get a opening line on the rule , but most of the rules have a breakdown , were you go from the opening line to different parts of the rules that are more applicable to the situation ,

That is were we stand with UEFA rules , We have signed documents from when Textor come into the club that the running of the football club , he had no influence over , and CAS will look at that , plus Lyon being allowed more time plus other cases ,

we are in a very strong position as the rules are open to bad interruption , which UEFA have done ,

I speak from being involved 4 tribunal cases and watched 2 , so hopefully we will find out this week as the clock ticking towards conference draw on the 4th
Click to expand...
Do we actually though? I know he said that on TalkSport but... Do we actually?
 
mtp1958 said:
sorry that's very naive , you don't say things like that and not have proof , he doesn't have to prove to you or anyone other than UEFA and CAS , its just a stupid comment with no proof on your part
Click to expand...
This is John Textor we're talking about.
He does say things. And he's the only one who's ever made that claim.
 
est1905 said:
Here lies your lack of legal knowledge at the highest level. At the top level lawyers pick and choose their cases and dont need to 'pay the bills'. Any lawyer that needs the money would not get anywhere near this case. Its high profile and the media are all over it. I have family in the legal profession. I know what I'm talking about. Sure, there are thousands of cases out there that lawyers take that have little chance. These are usually taken on by duty solicitors or ambulance chasers. In other words the Lidl or Aldi end of the market. Top end? Nope, sorry. This will have top guys on it. Top guys that intend to win and would not take it on unless they believed they would.
In terms of a weird notion I would say comparing a legal challenge to a football match is not just weird its idiotic
Click to expand...
Yes, this is how it works.
Parish didn't like the UEFA finding, consulted with his legal team, which having scrutinised the full UEFA report, have told Parish that there are a number of holes in it which can be picked apart. Let's note that they are specialists in sports law and know what they are talking about.
Let's also note that Parish, in full open dialogue with the legal team, has been informed about the possible outcomes of proceeding with the case against UEFA. These people don't leave anything to chance. As some posters have suggested there will likely be some sort of compromise. We don't know what that is going to be as we don't know the exact details of the case.
 
I think that I read a few pages back stats regarding CAS. If I remember correctly only about a third of cases actually went to the court. This hopefully indicates that there is a chance this could be settled before a court case.
 
In the old HOL tradition, it's looking increasingly likely this is going to end in a bare-knuckle fight In Sainsbury's car park
That's the only fair and ethical way to settle this dispute.
Trouble is, Parish is very protective over his hair, and his big beak would be a vulnerable target for the UEFA strong man 💪💪👊👊. 👃💥🤛
 
est1905 said:
Here lies your lack of legal knowledge at the highest level. At the top level lawyers pick and choose their cases and dont need to 'pay the bills'. Any lawyer that needs the money would not get anywhere near this case. Its high profile and the media are all over it. I have family in the legal profession. I know what I'm talking about. Sure, there are thousands of cases out there that lawyers take that have little chance. These are usually taken on by duty solicitors or ambulance chasers. In other words the Lidl or Aldi end of the market. Top end? Nope, sorry. This will have top guys on it. Top guys that intend to win and would not take it on unless they believed they would.
In terms of a weird notion I would say comparing a legal challenge to a football match is not just weird its idiotic
Click to expand...
Anyone who resorts to that as an argument is desperate. Just imagine a lawyer trying to convince a judge on that basis!
 
Forest Hillbilly said:
In the old HOL tradition, it's looking increasingly likely this is going to end in a bare-knuckle fight In Sainsbury's car park
That's the only fair and ethical way to settle this dispute.
Trouble is, Parish is very protective over his hair, and his big beak would be a vulnerable target for the UEFA strong man 💪💪👊👊. 👃💥🤛
Click to expand...
leave people with large noises alone , when we turn sideways they aim for the tip , so leaves them ready for a sucker punch , I noises this 🥷
 
pssguy said:
Anyone who resorts to that as an argument is desperate. Just imagine a lawyer trying to convince a judge on that basis!
Click to expand...
would likely be a barrister going into CAS or equivalent , that's what I had , so its high paid high profile case , they don't want to lose , so if Palace have employed them to give them best advise and to best chance of winning , dont think they would say you will win 100% , if they thought you had only 30% chance or les they would say its down to you but advise against , that is the real legal world
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top