Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Football] If Palace can't play in the Europa League



PILTDOWN MAN

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 15, 2004
20,556
Hurst Green
Sounds like Textor has been trying to sell for a while because he can't buy more shares (as @ThePaddy says), and not just because of the UEFA issue.

Quotes from Textor, after the hearing:

‘Look, all of the UK knows that I don’t have decisive influence over Palace. It was a good meeting. They listened and we'll see what happens. I wouldn't be trying to sell (this stake) if I did.’

‘We are trying to help separate it and sell. We wanted to buy but it’s become clear that isn’t going to happen and so we’re trying to help Palace and the situation with UEFA. That’s about all I can say.’
He wanted more control but couldn't get it, hardly someone trying to sell to help.
 




TWOCHOICEStom

Well-known member
Sep 22, 2007
11,166
Brighton
I kinda agree with this but why did it take 2 hours to hold the meeting. Surely, it should have been cleared up within minutes if everything was in order ? No smoke without fire ?

Power move by UEFA. Come to Switzerland and kiss the ring and we’ll let you in?

Honestly they’re not getting chucked out are they….

But with that said. CAN YOU IMAGINE?
 


Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
62,806
Location Location
How much is 6 games in Europe worth to CPFC2010, really not that much.

Why would Textor want to engage in a fire sale, would seem pretty dumb from a business point of view.

CPFC2010 are one of many investments, it’s just business . He’s no Tony Bloom
8 games now, under the current format. But your point stands.

Anyway, CPFC2010 will snide their way around the rules as per usual. Its just what they do. Its baked in to their DNA.
 


BadFish

Huge Member
NSC Patron
Oct 19, 2003
20,078


BadFish

Huge Member
NSC Patron
Oct 19, 2003
20,078












A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
23,122
Deepest, darkest Sussex
Get into European competition legitimately and on merit, you’ll never sing that
 










Hotchilidog

Well-known member
Jan 24, 2009
9,672
Sounds like Textor has been trying to sell for a while because he can't buy more shares (as @ThePaddy says), and not just because of the UEFA issue.

Quotes from Textor, after the hearing:

‘Look, all of the UK knows that I don’t have decisive influence over Palace. It was a good meeting. They listened and we'll see what happens. I wouldn't be trying to sell (this stake) if I did.’

‘We are trying to help separate it and sell. We wanted to buy but it’s become clear that isn’t going to happen and so we’re trying to help Palace and the situation with UEFA. That’s about all I can say.’
The are not the words of someone who seems heavily invested in the outcome. "We are trying to help Palace?" hang on a minute mate, you are Palace and this your mess you utter plum. This is the first time I genuinely, rather than humorously, think that Palace are in trouble here.

If Textor has been told to sell then he better get on with it bloody quickly, I cannot imagine they will be given much time to sort it out, and I would be looking at the June 17 draw as the crunch time. Also I think Forest would protest if they miss out on an upgrade to the more lucrative and prestigious Europa League.
 


The Optimist

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Apr 6, 2008
3,399
Lewisham
While it’s fun to hope Palace get kicked out and failing that, fun to suggest that they’re cheats to be there, is there any actual clarity on exactly what the rules are around shareholdings, voting rights etc?

Also, UEFA’s rules also seem strange to me. Why is multi club ownership only an issue if the clubs are in the same competition? Why is owning one club in the Champions League, one in the Europa League and one in the Conference League?

If UEFA don’t like multi club ownership why not outright ban it? Do they only have power over teams in UEFA competitions? It seems the rules could be simplified to help avoid these types of situations.
 




Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo

I believe in Joe Hendry
Oct 4, 2003
12,954
While it’s fun to hope Palace get kicked out and failing that, fun to suggest that they’re cheats to be there, is there any actual clarity on exactly what the rules are around shareholdings, voting rights etc?

Also, UEFA’s rules also seem strange to me. Why is multi club ownership only an issue if the clubs are in the same competition? Why is owning one club in the Champions League, one in the Europa League and one in the Conference League?

If UEFA don’t like multi club ownership why not outright ban it? Do they only have power over teams in UEFA competitions? It seems the rules could be simplified to help avoid these types of situations.

The rules do cover clubs playing in any European competition rather than just the same one.

It depends on where a club is entering the competition. As clubs no longer drop into a lower competition at the end of the league stage then clubs that enter at that point would only need to worry if they are in the same competition (like Palace and Lyon).

However teams still drop into the lower competitions if they are knocked out in the qualifying rounds. So if an owner has clubs entering in the qualifying rounds they’d have to ensure all clubs under their ownership, in European competitions that season, met the rules even if some were going straight into a league stage as there is a potential for the teams to end up in the same competition.

This could have effected Forest as Olympiacos were due to enter the Champions League in the 2nd qualifying round, so could have easily found themselves in the Europa or Conference League. It isn’t an issue now as they’ve qualified directly for the Champions League group stage because winners PSG also qualified through their domestic league.
Forest covered this off anyway by putting the club into a blind trust, although they too may have missed the deadline.
 
Last edited:










pb21

Well-known member
Apr 23, 2010
7,039
Given that its apparently straightforward to organise things so that compliance is met, could it be the case that palace chose not to take these measures?

Its either that they can't organise a piss up in a brewery (or cant be bothered) or possibly could it be something more nefarious that would be highlighted if they did make changes? Makes you wonder...
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here