The **Official** Crystal Palace Club Thread - Sponsored by Tasty Jerk Chicken

If you guys do get into europe then I can't see you selling guehi 'cheap', probably end up keeping him for the season for a european trophy push
 
Last edited:
Palace chucked out of Europa, but accepted into Conference pending appeals.

From what I've read, there's no basis in the rules for just a demotion, so no idea if Brighton will appeal it.
 
To be honest it is the usual ******** from UEFA. If we were called PSG, Real Madrid or Man City it wouldn't be a problem.

They can't take our FA Cup win away though
 
Last edited:
Will Forest take their place?

This seems more of a case to get rid of English teams from the competition as 16th and 17th got to the final and Uefa don't want a 12th placed premier league team winning it next year.

Palace have a realistic chance of winning it.

How does Man United get away with being in the same comp as Nice and City with Girona. It stinks to high heaven.
 
Last edited:
The thing is, they know the rules on multi-club ownership, so is this actually justified in terms of the rules?

I know it seems very unfair, but it's hardly a shock. I'd say it's an injustice if other clubs with the exact same issue have been given a free pass, but is that actually the case?
 
Robbo said:
The thing is, they know the rules on multi-club ownership, so is this actually justified in terms of the rules?

I know it seems very unfair, but it's hardly a shock. I'd say it's an injustice if other clubs with the exact same issue have been given a free pass, but is that actually the case?
Click to expand...

Honestly, no.

Palace's position is that they were not part of a multi-club ownership setup. Textor, a minority shareholder, had no control of the running of the club. Which is why he was trying to sell his stake and buy another club - Everton notably. Palace is a well run club and all the clubs which are part of his multi-club ownership scheme are a basket case.

The arbitrary deadline to place his shares in a blind trust was moved for this season to March. A point at which Palace were unaware they would be competing in Europe. Also, they had no way to compel Textor to do this and as he was actively trying to sell his shares he wouldn't have wanted to do so.
 
spudbynight said:
Honestly, no.

Palace's position is that they were not part of a multi-club ownership setup. Textor, a minority shareholder, had no control of the running of the club. Which is why he was trying to sell his stake and buy another club - Everton notably. Palace is a well run club and all the clubs which are part of his multi-club ownership scheme are a basket case.

The arbitrary deadline to place his shares in a blind trust was moved for this season to March. A point at which Palace were unaware they would be competing in Europe. Also, they had no way to compel Textor to do this and as he was actively trying to sell his shares he wouldn't have wanted to do so.
Click to expand...

Hopefully they appeal and this nonsense gets resolved.
 
spudbynight said:
Honestly, no.

Palace's position is that they were not part of a multi-club ownership setup. Textor, a minority shareholder, had no control of the running of the club. Which is why he was trying to sell his stake and buy another club - Everton notably. Palace is a well run club and all the clubs which are part of his multi-club ownership scheme are a basket case.

The arbitrary deadline to place his shares in a blind trust was moved for this season to March. A point at which Palace were unaware they would be competing in Europe. Also, they had no way to compel Textor to do this and as he was actively trying to sell his shares he wouldn't have wanted to do so.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, while a unique situation and very easy to sympathise with Palace, it was justified under the rules, something even Steve Parish accepts.

While Palace and the other shareholders will say they’re not part of a multi club model, John Textor very much is and is entirely open about that. And as the largest shareholder in Palace it’s very hard to argue that he does not have any input into the running and decision making at Palace and that’s ultimately the issue.

Ultimately by teaming up with Textor the club and other shareholders have left themselves at the mercy of Textor. Palace would have avoided this if Textor had taken the required steps to give up his voting rights at Palace. Unfortunately Textor is the worst of the worst investors, funding his investments with huge debts, who cannot just quickly sell or put his shares into trust.
 
BaZ87 said:
Unfortunately, while a unique situation and very easy to sympathise with Palace, it was justified under the rules, something even Steve Parish accepts.

While Palace and the other shareholders will say they’re not part of a multi club model, John Textor very much is and is entirely open about that. And as the largest shareholder in Palace it’s very hard to argue that he does not have any input into the running and decision making at Palace and that’s ultimately the issue.

Ultimately by teaming up with Textor the club and other shareholders have left themselves at the mercy of Textor. Palace would have avoided this if Textor had taken the required steps to give up his voting rights at Palace. Unfortunately Textor is the worst of the worst investors, funding his investments with huge debts, who cannot just quickly sell or put his shares into trust.
Click to expand...

Did you see this article I posted the other day?

www.telegraph.co.uk

Chelsea and Aston Villa being fined while Crystal Palace are banned would be a mockery

Should Uefa bar South London club from Europa League due to a matter beyond their control it would reek of hypocrisy
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
 
Last edited:
Palace don’t accept the rule has been broken. Which is why they are appealing to the CAS.

Textor had no control over Palace at any point. He had a 25% vote which was actually less than that as Parish has a golden vote in the case of a 50-50 decision.
 
spudbynight said:
Did you see this article I posted the other day?

www.telegraph.co.uk

Chelsea and Aston Villa being fined while Crystal Palace are banned would be a mockery

Should Uefa bar South London club from Europa League due to a matter beyond their control it would reek of hypocrisy
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
I have a lot of sympathy for Palace however the decision has been taken within the rules, which you denied was the case.

Textor has total control of Lyon and at the time Palace’s case was heard, was the largest single shareholder at Palace. Textor was on talksport the day before the ruling admitting that Palace don’t have any formal decision making process and confirming that Parish doesn’t have a golden share that gives him control. He said Parish makes all the decisions but that he and the others just allow him to. It’s very difficult for UEFA to just take clubs word for things, they need more than just Textor saying he allows Parish to call the shots.

Again I have lots of sympathy for Palace as they have been caught up in rules not really meant for them. It’s a case of the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law. Whether anything can be done to reverse the decision, I hope so but I suspect not.

The maddest thing will be any CAS appeal because by the time that’s heard Textor could be gone however I believe all CAS will look at is whether UEFA’s decision last week was correct, not whether Palace are still in breach of multi club rules.
 
BaZ87 said:
I have a lot of sympathy for Palace however the decision has been taken within the rules, which you denied was the case.
Click to expand...

No, that is incorrect. I argued that Palace's position is that they were not in breach of the rules. The way the rules are worded leaves this open to interpretation. The rules stipulate that no person can have more than 30% control of two or more clubs.

Textor had more than 30% of the equity of the club through his Eagle Football company. He had less than 30% control as per the structure of the club.

Palace's position is that because Textor had less than 30% control they were not in breach of the regulation. They have decided to appeal the decision of UEFA to CAS.

There is clearly an arbitrary nature to the way UEFA have decided to make their decision.

Another good article in the i today.

www.independent.co.uk

Crystal Palace have become an easy target in a crisis of football’s own making

Comment: Palace’s demotion from the Europa League to the Europa Conference League is a mess that only highlights football’s failure to regulate multi-club ownership
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
 
Last edited:
I’m sorry but that’s not correct. In the Sky Sports interview you posted a few posts above, Steve Parish clearly states that Palace haven’t complied with the rules, with his defence being that it’s impossible for them to comply. By this he means only Textor can make the changes required for Palace to fall within the rules.

Textor also claimed that talk of x voting rights wasn’t true either and suggested it’s just done informally. He too seemed to acknowledge there was a big problem claiming his first reaction to Palace’s cup win was ‘oh ****’ and the reason he/Palace didn’t have their house in order was because he never expected to qualify.

Again I have complete sympathy with Palace and hope somebody somewhere can overturn this because the rules weren’t meant for this however they are in breach of the letter of the law as they admit. Their defence is the rule wasn’t meant for this and they’re trying to prove that in reality Textor has no power, even if the clubs structure doesn’t prevent him from having his voice heard.
 
BaZ87 said:
I’m sorry but that’s not correct. In the Sky Sports interview you posted a few posts above, Steve Parish clearly states that Palace haven’t complied with the rules, with his defence being that it’s impossible for them to comply. By this he means only Textor can make the changes required for Palace to fall within the rules.
Click to expand...

No, it is correct. The Palace position they had stated was that they believed that had complied with the rules. That was before the judgement from UEFA which said they hadn't and Palace then said "well, it was impossible to comply with the rules"

If they thought they had broken the rules and it was a "fair cop guv" then they wouldn't be appealing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom