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

I know it wouldn't apply now as the format has changed but were there any cases of a team dropping out of CL group stage into Europa knockouts that had the same owners/shareholders
 
spudbynight said:
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.
Click to expand...
The original question from Robbo was whether the decision was justified within the rules, which is what I commented on and like it or not, the answer is yes and that has been confirmed by Parish.

Anyway, hopefully something can be done about this.
 
BaZ87 said:
The original question from Robbo was whether the decision was justified within the rules, which is what I commented on and like it or not, the answer is yes and that has been confirmed by Parish.

Anyway, hopefully something can be done about this.
Click to expand...


No, Palace's position it that it isn't justified, which is why Parish is appealing it.

The rules say one thing. UEFA have said they mean A and Palace interpreted them as B. An appeal is to be lodged and the CAS will decide if they actually mean A or B or something else.

UEFA have made a mess of this and surely now they just hope it goes away.

Palace's position has been widely reported and the BBC sum it up quite well HERE

In the governing body's rulebook, a club is required to prove they are not "simultaneously involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration, and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a Uefa club competition".

Textor's Eagle Football owns a 43% stake in Palace and a 77% stake in Lyon, but the Premier League side argued they are an entity that operates entirely independently.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
spudbynight said:
No, Palace's position it that it isn't justified, which is why Parish is appealing it.

The rules say one thing. UEFA have said they mean A and Palace interpreted them as B. An appeal as lodged and the CAS will decide if they actually mean A or B or something else.

UEFA have made a mess of this and surely now they just hope it goes away.

Palace's position has been widely reported and the BBC sum it up quite well HERE
Click to expand...
If you haven't watch the entire Sky Sports interview with Parish because he acknowledges multiple times in it that Palace have breached the new rules introduced this season. Palace's argument isn't that they've technically not breached (again Parish admits they breached due to a technicality (essentially the size of Textor's shareholding)) but that a) they didn't receive the email notifying them of the rule change (that's Palace's fault) in time to make the required change, b) the rule wasn't designed for them and they've been caught in the cross fire, c) Palace do not have the power to force Textor to do what is required in order for them to comply with the rules d) despite all of that and there being nothing formally in place (confirmed by Textor), you can take our word for it that only Parish makes any decisions, e) Textor's selling now so the 1st March deadline shouldn't matter and f) the punishment outweighs the crime.

It's unfair and sucks for Palace but it's clear that they are in breach of the law as you were initially asked and denied. I'm sure you won't agree and I see no point going round in circles anymore so I'll leave it at that and hope Palace are successful in their appeal, particularly as by the time an appeal is heard and certainly before the competition begins, Textor no longer will be around.
 
BaZ87 said:
If you haven't watch the entire Sky Sports interview with Parish because he acknowledges multiple times in it that Palace have breached the new rules introduced this season. Palace's argument isn't that they've technically not breached (again Parish admits they breached due to a technicality (essentially the size of Textor's shareholding)) but that a) they didn't receive the email notifying them of the rule change (that's Palace's fault) in time to make the required change, b) the rule wasn't designed for them and they've been caught in the cross fire, c) Palace do not have the power to force Textor to do what is required in order for them to comply with the rules d) despite all of that and there being nothing formally in place (confirmed by Textor), you can take our word for it that only Parish makes any decisions, e) Textor's selling now so the 1st March deadline shouldn't matter and f) the punishment outweighs the crime.

It's unfair and sucks for Palace but it's clear that they are in breach of the law as you were initially asked and denied. I'm sure you won't agree and I see no point going round in circles anymore so I'll leave it at that and hope Palace are successful in their appeal, particularly as by the time an appeal is heard and certainly before the competition begins, Textor no longer will be around.
Click to expand...

I have watched the interview in question. I have also read pretty much everything else said by the club in the run up to the decision and afterwards.

I just don’t agree with your assessment of things.
 
I really think the fact that Forest have taken our place while actually being part of a multi club operation is something that really sticks in the throat.

And the actions of their owner on the pitch at the end of the season demonstrate that a "blind trust" makes zero difference to anything.
 
Not seen the official verdict yet but it's disappointing, borderline ridiculous, seeing that Textor now no longer has any shares!

At least the Shield win yesterday was good.

I've heard that Palace were considering a compensation claim if their appeal failed...
 
I feel for Palace, it's unfair but ultimately they have technically breached the rules. Whether the rules are fit for purpose is another matter.

At least they're still in a competition and in fairness, they actually have a decent chance of winning it.
 
bloodiedathame said:
Not seen the official verdict yet but it's disappointing, borderline ridiculous, seeing that Textor now no longer has any shares!

At least the Shield win yesterday was good.

I've heard that Palace were considering a compensation claim if their appeal failed...
Click to expand...

Robbo said:
I feel for Palace, it's unfair but ultimately they have technically breached the rules. Whether the rules are fit for purpose is another matter.

At least they're still in a competition and in fairness, they actually have a decent chance of winning it.
Click to expand...
It does seem a little harsh but at the start of last season when the rules were in place Textor still was part owner of Palace so in theory the were in breach of the rules, I guess it wasn't thought of as an issue by Palace until it became an issue but too late the date had passed.

You could also argue that Palace thought it wasn't an issue as they didn't expect to be playing in Europe so surprised themselves
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom