Mustafa II
Tempus Meum Est
I'm not sure UEFA will be bending over backwards for a small and unfashionable club like Palace. It could be just as likely they will make an example of them.
[Football] Which club do you EXPECT to see in Europe next season?
- Thread starter Wozza
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
I'm not sure UEFA will be bending over backwards for a small and unfashionable club like Palace. It could be just as likely they will make an example of them.
kevo
Well-known member
- Mar 8, 2008
- 10,346
Been said countless times before, but if it was that straightforward it wouldn't be being dragged out like this. They could prove that immediately.
Sussexscots
3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 3, 3, 3, 3 ,3 ,3 3 coach chuggers
Perhaps. Yet while Palace may be unfashionable, the clout of the Premier League is significant. Which may be why it is going to take so long to reach a decision.
oldboyroy
Well-known member
Yes, something is still wrong otherwise it surely would've been sorted and confirmed when the met earlier in the week?
- Sep 3, 2010
- 6,536
Getting boring. Palace will be excused and it’s been amusing but so many comments on these Palace threads are coming across as Deja Vu now!
- Oct 20, 2022
- 8,841
It largely seems to come down to vagueness of the definitions of ‘club’ and ‘ownership’ - there being no legal framework for enforcement and whether UEFA think the March deadline created an unfair pressure:
Excellent article here: states the point I was making above that when Palace should have been restructuring/reallocating ownership shares to meet the multi-club regulations, no one realistically believed they’d win the FA Cup:
”Palace's oversight could just be cast as another consequence of the modern game. The wealthiest clubs almost always win, so why tempt fate - and potential schadenfreude - by opting for a blind trust as early as the FA Cup quarter-final? It would certainly have gone against the sense of romance and defiance.”
It also concludes (as I did) that UEFA may come down on the side of Palace simply because it’s the best outcome for the sake of the modern game that hasn’t yet met the realities of multi-club ownership. It’s fine having rules but they need to have an inherent sense of natural justice about them in the way they are applied and one troubling criteria here is ‘clarity’.
Crystal Palace’s European dream is at risk – it’s time for football to wake up
Crystal Palace face the prospect of not being able to play in the Europa League thanks to multi-club ownership, with John Textor holding stakes in the Eagles and Lyon
www.independent.co.uk
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 14,531
Palace have presented that argument, but it is reported that UEFA have not accepted this.
He has claimed that he was trying to sell his shares, when in truth he said either buy me out or let me take control.
That issue remains unresolved.
Regardless of how Palace have fudged their constitution, Textor remains the majority shareholder, and seemingly someone still interested in taking full control.
The Liverpool thing was slightly different though. In essence that was UEFA not imagining the possibility that a club could win the Champions League whilst also performing poorly in the league. It's not something they introduced to stop something unwanted from happening - it was just unanticipated. So they amended that, initially as a one off and now permanent.
This is different in that the rules have been brought in precisely because what is happening was envisaged - and they have been trying to stop it from happening.
It's the difference between relaxing the rules because of an unforeseen circumstance and enforcing the rules brought in to stop the very thing you were trying to stop from happening.
Sussexscots
3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 3, 3, 3, 3 ,3 ,3 3 coach chuggers
Absolutely fair point, well made; and it appears that Palace have fallen foul of the rule.
All I am saying is the UEFA have previous for twisting on the hook when push comes to actual shove. And wondering why, when the situation appears clear cut, it is seemingly going to another two/three weeks to resolve.
I do like your 'linguistic legerdemain' - I might try and use that at work sometime!
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 14,531
The Irony is that City will almost certainly be competing in Europe next season, because the premier League are delaying enforcing their rules.
Whilst Palace may end up missing out because UEFA won't delay implementing theirs.
Whilst Palace may end up missing out because UEFA won't delay implementing theirs.
As far as I can make out, it took UEFA until early July 2023 to ratify the action that Tony Bloom took one month earlier. That obviously happened after we had qualified for the Europa League and I can't find anything about how the 1st March deadline was bypassed. Hopefully @Thunder Bolt and @Bozza can help based on their research.
I agree with many that a loophole is incoming. Money talks. If UEFA adhere to the Tony Bloom 2023 ruling, Textor will need to reduce his shares in Crystal Palace, via Eagle Football Holdings, to 25%, and hand over all voting rights. As someone pointed out, the relationship between the board of directors at Palace outwardly appears to be like chalk and cheese compared to Tony Bloom and Alex Muzio at USG owners, Langford Holdings.
The USG website states that Alex Muzio has been running the club with two other directors since 2018, and I'm sure that's the case. And no doubt Textor has pleaded the same. Either way, that line of enquiry is surely null and void. How can UEFA establish exactly what's going on behind the scenes and what influence individuals have?
As regards Palace on the pitch, fixture pile up would be a concern of mine unless they've got strength in depth, which I get the feeling they don't. Might be wrong of course. It has been known.
- Oct 20, 2022
- 8,841
There was a very different dynamic between stakeholders at board level at USG compared to Selhurst Park as I mentioned above (which you alluded to in your post). For the first five years, Muzio held a 10% stake and controlled the board voting rights as does Parish now at Palace. In July 2023, to comply with UEFA Competition Regulations around multi-club ownership, he took a loan against his house to acquire 75 per cent of the club and reduce Bloom’s holding to a minority stake. RUSG became very much Muzio’s club. As we all know, that went smoothly and TB willingly relinquished his controlling share.
Palace is very much Parishes’ Club and he has the final say on the Board - Textor made moves to buy him out/takeover which is public knowledge and reported by the Guardian last month:
John Textor launches plan for audacious takeover of Crystal Palace
John Textor, who faces competition from the NY Jets owner Woody Johnson, is in talks with Crystal Palace’s other main shareholders to increase his stake in the club to 80%
www.theguardian.com
- it has caused a hostile environment - he could plead that he doesn’t have a controlling influence Parish does but evidence points to him not wanting to hand back shares but in fact wanting a complete take over despite what he says. Of course EFH Ltd could sell shares in Lyon which would solve the issue for Palace!
Last edited:
Sussexscots
3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3 3, 3, 3, 3 ,3 ,3 3 coach chuggers
Thank you for the comprehensive reply!
Confess I never got the sense that we might have been expelled from the competition. Perhaps I simply assumed that TB would have considered all the angles and had the matter in hand.
I agree with the conclusion of your second paragraph. The relationship appears markedly different.
Indeed. As is so often said on NSC, we are very lucky to have Tony Bloom and Paul Barber running the club. Pretty much nailed on that, if they are doing something, they are doing it properly.
Honestly, I think an input from @Mr Putdown would be of benefit to the debate. He/she always seems to have a balanced view that keeps the rivalry in context.