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

[kevo]

They do not meet the rules for eligibility.

No court will care about anything other than those rules, and interpretation of them.

IF UEFA disqualify Palace, any legal action on their part would be pointless.

The rules ARE open to interpretation though, and that is why it is taking time to resolve. How do you define how much influence someone has on running a club? It is basically at UEFA's discretion how they interpret it - which leaves it open to legal challenge if Palace think they can prove otherwise.

 

[Mattasha]

They do not meet the rules for eligibility.

No court will care about anything other than those rules, and interpretation of them.

IF UEFA disqualify Palace, any legal action on their part would be pointless.

Do poor old Wolves meet the Rules for eligibility ?

 

[Hotchilidog]

This is my feeling about it too. As much as I'd LOVE them to be chucked out, I just can't see it happening.

Yes, it would leave UEFA open to legal action by Forest and possibly ourselves, but they'd face legal action from Palace if they expelled them.

Clarity is needed on the rules, and UEFA will recognise that, but I suspect any change won't happen until some time in the future, when the furore has died down a bit.

Not really the rules are clear on the acceptable shareholdings, clubs have complied with the rules on this basis, not on the nod and wink arrangement at Palace.

UEFA would be weakening themselves if they allow unique interpretations of their rules to hold sway. That is not to say a clairification and refinement of the rule may not happen in the future. If there was to be an adjustment to the rule surely there would have to be due process to make that change. I must confess I am not familiar with the process that UEFA uses to establish its rules, but I am sure it is more than an official saying to Palace "Go on then, you're alright".

 

[hans kraay fan club]

The rules ARE open to interpretation though, and that is why it is taking time to resolve. How do you define how much influence someone has on running a club? It is basically at UEFA's discretion how they interpret it - which leaves it open to legal challenge if Palace think they can prove otherwise.

By looking at who owns / controls the SHAREHOLDING. Nothing else can possibly be effectively monitored or policed.

 

[Hotchilidog]

By looking at who owns / controls the SHAREHOLDING. Nothing else can possibly be effectively monitored or policed.

Exactly, any other arrangement has to be taken on trust. Who on earth would trust anything the owner of a football club would say?

 

[Creaky]

By looking at who owns / controls the SHAREHOLDING. Nothing else can possibly be effectively monitored or policed.

If that is correct then why do the UEFA rules in section 15.01 state:-
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:

holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights;

having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club;

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

being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club.


That section specifically refers to voting shares - in other sections they refer simply to shares

They are open to interpretation.

 

[drew]

100% agree.

Which is why we need to get back on track and start posting twitter posts and links to other social media examples of palace fans shitting themselves and going into meltdown. Put the FUN back into the situation rather than repeating the same points over and over and over again.

Not sure what you mean by that as I can't see anywhere on the thread someone explaining why they can't just drop into the conference!!!!!!

 

[drew]

I'm predicting that this independent UEFA financial subcommittee will accept Palace's argument at the end of this month due to Textor not having more than a 25% vote at board level.

They will then add detailed clarification to their rules that will enable multi-club ownership beyond 30% BUT with the caveat that if there is majority ownership in two clubs in the same UEFA competition, voting rights and control of the club must not exceed 25% as is the case at Palace.

I think the blind trust and Textor shares sale in the next two weeks are off the table.

Have you not noted that Beaky also has 25% voting rights as do Blitzer and Harris!!! I'm sure it's been mentioned numerous times on this thread.

 

[super-seagulls]

Not sure what you mean by that as I can't see anywhere on the thread someone explaining why they can't just drop into the conference!!!!!!

It was something to do with Wolves winning the League Cup.

 

[Hotchilidog]

TLDR Justice for Wolves!

 

[rippleman]

This is my feeling about it too. As much as I'd LOVE them to be chucked out, I just can't see it happening.

Yes, it would leave UEFA open to legal action by Forest and possibly ourselves, but they'd face legal action from Palace if they expelled them.

Clarity is needed on the rules, and UEFA will recognise that, but I suspect any change won't happen until some time in the future, when the furore has died down a bit.

You are probably right and we'll see UEFA bottle it but if they don't, could palace afford to take on UEFA in the Courts. I thought Beaky didn't have a pot to p*ss in. At least the other three don't appear to be able to afford to buy Textor out.

 

[Dick Swiveller]

TLDR Justice for Vulvas!

Fixed for you.

All the best, RDZ

 

[Bodian]

If that is correct then why do the UEFA rules in section 15.01 state:-
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:

holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights;

having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club;

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

being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club.


That section specifically refers to voting shares - in other sections they refer simply to shares

They are open to interpretation.

This bit's a catch-all. He'd be a bit hard-pushed to deny he has this, no matter what percentage of shares/voting rights he has.

 

[Hugo Rune]

... and any other clubs that have historically been blocked but would have been ok under the revised rule, and/or any other clubs where owners have adjusted their holdings in order to meet the rules as written. UEFA would be potentially opening a massive can of worms if they actually changed the rules at the last minute to allow Palace in.

The 'fudge' will be a 'clarification' of the rules rather than a 'change' if they spin the way I think they will.

 

[schmunk]

That thread is disgusting and so typical of palace. Not once have they considered the plight of poor old Wolves.

That place has gone to the dogs.

 

[Bozza]

For those dirtying themselves and perusing Palace forums and the like, is there any hint of criticism towards Parish et al for getting them into this position?

Even if they get out of it, and they surely will one way or another, it's absolute amateur hour, and questions should be asked.

 

[Gazwag]

For those dirtying themselves and perusing Palace forums and the like, is there any hint of criticism towards Parish et al for getting them into this position?

Even if they get out of it, and they surely will one way or another, it's absolute amateur hour, and questions should be asked.

It'll be the same as Everton and Forest fans, the fact their clubs cheated and got caught has absolutely nothing to do their club's owners, they are completely blameless it's all about corruption within the governing bodies.

 

[Flounce]

For those dirtying themselves and perusing Palace forums and the like, is there any hint of criticism towards Parish et al for getting them into this position?

Even if they get out of it, and they surely will one way or another, it's absolute amateur hour, and questions should be asked.

I skim read a few and saw the blaming of Textor and sympathising that Beaky was right all along to want him gone

 

[Birdie Boy]

This bit's a catch-all. He'd be a bit hard-pushed to deny he has this, no matter what percentage of shares/voting rights he has.

I was about to say this. He clearly said he'd decided where Glasner would manage, ie which club. End of story.

 

[kevo]

By looking at who owns / controls the SHAREHOLDING. Nothing else can possibly be effectively monitored or policed.

In which case, why hasn't this already been resolved?