(20-07-2025, 06:51 PM)Passing Ship Wrote: I have been following this story for a while now and just stumbled on this forum and read this thread, which I find hard to believe. Has anyone actually read the UEFA rules that this issue relates to? Has it been posted here? Sorry but I haven’t read all 114 pages! If not, here it is:-

Article 5 Integrity of the competition/multi-club ownership
5.01
To ensure the integrity of the UEFA club competitions (i.e. UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League and UEFA Conference League), the club must be able to prove that as at 1 March 2025 the below multi-club ownership criteria were met and the club must continue to comply with the below criteria from that date until the end of the competition season:

No club participating in a UEFA club competition may, either directly or indirectly:
hold or deal in the securities or shares of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition;
be a member of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition;
be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition; or
have any power whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition.
No one may simultaneously be involved, either directly or indirectly, in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition.
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.

Read them carefully, as I have. I don’t think there is any one of those requirements that Palace fall foul of. Textor might, but at Lyon not Palace.

So I can well understand why Palace have waited to read the detailed reasoning from UEFA before going to CAS as any competent lawyer is likely to be able to blow it apart. I can also see why they have suggested UEFA must make a full disclosure of all correspondence regarding this matter. Full disclosure being an essential part of any legal process of this nature.

I think this is very far from done and substantial compensation claims could follow, from both Palace and Forest, for the disruption to their preseason planning due to UEFA incompetence. Of which there has been a great deal. It has the potential to become very big indeed.

(20-07-2025, 06:51 PM)Passing Ship Wrote: I have been following this story for a while now and just stumbled on this forum and read this thread, which I find hard to believe. Has anyone actually read the UEFA rules that this issue relates to? Has it been posted here? Sorry but I haven’t read all 114 pages! If not, here it is:-

Article 5 Integrity of the competition/multi-club ownership
5.01
To ensure the integrity of the UEFA club competitions (i.e. UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League and UEFA Conference League), the club must be able to prove that as at 1 March 2025 the below multi-club ownership criteria were met and the club must continue to comply with the below criteria from that date until the end of the competition season:

No club participating in a UEFA club competition may, either directly or indirectly:
hold or deal in the securities or shares of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition;
be a member of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition;
be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition; or
have any power whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition.
No one may simultaneously be involved, either directly or indirectly, in any capacity whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition.
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.

Read them carefully, as I have. I don’t think there is any one of those requirements that Palace fall foul of. Textor might, but at Lyon not Palace.

So I can well understand why Palace have waited to read the detailed reasoning from UEFA before going to CAS as any competent lawyer is likely to be able to blow it apart. I can also see why they have suggested UEFA must make a full disclosure of all correspondence regarding this matter. Full disclosure being an essential part of any legal process of this nature.

I think this is very far from done and substantial compensation claims could follow, from both Palace and Forest, for the disruption to their preseason planning due to UEFA incompetence. Of which there has been a great deal. It has the potential to become very big indeed.

(20-07-2025, 10:01 PM)camt1395 Wrote: Clearly it is not over, unless Crystal Palace decide not to appeal. However, John Textor’s view of his influence is not massively important. He owns the majority of the shares in Eagle Football, who own(ed) 43% of the shares of CP and more than 80% of the shares of Lyon on March 1st. The CFCB consider a shareholding of more than 30% to be an indicator of decisive influence (not ‘control’). These are the bare facts.

I would expect the appeal to be based on unfairness of the punishment rather than disputing these facts. They would have a point. The decision might well be in their favour. After all, the Irish team’s appeal was decided 2-1 against.

(21-07-2025, 09:28 AM)Passing Ship Wrote:

(20-07-2025, 10:01 PM)camt1395 Wrote: Clearly it is not over, unless Crystal Palace decide not to appeal. However, John Textor’s view of his influence is not massively important. He owns the majority of the shares in Eagle Football, who own(ed) 43% of the shares of CP and more than 80% of the shares of Lyon on March 1st. The CFCB consider a shareholding of more than 30% to be an indicator of decisive influence (not ‘control’). These are the bare facts.

I would expect the appeal to be based on unfairness of the punishment rather than disputing these facts. They would have a point. The decision might well be in their favour. After all, the Irish team’s appeal was decided 2-1 against.

They aren’t though facts! Read the rules about how decisive influence is defined:-

“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.”

It’s a majority of the voting rights, not the shareholding. In fact Textor held neither. 43% is not a majority and he held only 25% of the voting rights. None of the other definitions apply either. 

Fairness will be a factor but even if the strict application of the rules is determined as more important they don’t apply to Palace.

(20-07-2025, 10:09 PM)ac_vodka Wrote: why UEFA considered John Textor to have “influence” over Crystal Palace under Article 5 lies in interpreting the regulation’s broad definition of “control or influence” — and then looking at Textor’s actual relationship with the club.


---

⚖️ UEFA Article 5 – What Counts as “Influence”?

UEFA defines "influence or control" in four very specific ways:

> An individual or legal entity is considered to have control or influence if they:



1. Hold a majority of voting rights in the club,


2. Have the right to appoint or remove a majority of board members or directors,


3. Are a shareholder who can control a majority of voting rights via agreements with other shareholders,


4. Can exercise decisive influence in the club’s decision-making, administration, or sporting performance.



➡️ Importantly: Direct or indirect influence counts, and UEFA can look beyond formal ownership to the actual functioning of the club.


---

?‍? John Textor’s Influence Over Crystal Palace

While Textor does not own a majority of Crystal Palace, UEFA still found that he exerts sufficient influence. Here’s why:

1. Substantial Shareholding (~45%)

Textor owns around 45% of Crystal Palace through Eagle Football Holdings.

That alone is a very significant stake in a club where ownership is spread across multiple shareholders.

Even without a majority, a 45% stake can effectively block or steer decisions if no other shareholder holds more.


2. Board Representation

Textor sits on the Crystal Palace board as a director.

He participates in strategic decisions regarding transfers, staffing, budgets, etc.

Board representation = administrative and management influence (directly mentioned in Article 5).


3. Involvement in Football Decisions

Textor has been publicly involved in sporting matters across his clubs (e.g. analytics, scouting, multi-club player development).

UEFA sees football operations as a key area where “involvement” signals influence — especially if decisions or player movement are coordinated across clubs.


4. Statements from Textor

Textor has openly described Eagle Football as a “multi-club football group”.

He’s made public statements (e.g. in interviews and shareholder letters) about building “synergies” between Palace, Lyon, Botafogo, and others.

This indicates an intentional alignment of strategy, which UEFA interprets as cross-club influence.


5. Precedent from Other UEFA Cases

UEFA has blocked clubs from competing together even with minority stakes if there’s evidence of influence (e.g. Red Bull Salzburg & RB Leipzig in 2017 — UEFA only allowed both to play after RB significantly reduced its influence).

In those cases, factors like shared executives, common sponsors, or shared policies were enough.



---

? Why UEFA Found Textor Influential at Palace (Summary):

Factor Relevance to UEFA’s Definition of “Influence” Textor’s Status

Voting rights Significant stake (~45%) ✅
Board presence Direct seat on board = administrative role ✅
Sporting input Involved in football decisions across clubs ✅
Strategic alignment Describes clubs as working in sync ✅
Operational power Can block/resist decisions via shareholding ✅


So even without a 50%+ share, Textor met multiple criteria for “influence” under UEFA’s broad Article 5 interpretation.


---

? What Would Palace Have to Do to Be Eligible?

To remain in the Europa League, Palace would have needed to:

Prove that Textor had no decisive influence by March 1, 2025

Possibly restructure shareholding (e.g. drop below 30%)

Or remove him from the board and sporting matters


This likely wasn’t achieved in time, and UEFA ruled that Lyon (with majority ownership by Textor) retained the spot.

Credit - Google search

(20-07-2025, 10:20 PM)stefanduma Wrote: I guess that the £100+ million that Textor paid Palace to buy his shares has no influence on Palace whatsoever.
Parish thought he was smart screwing Textor for his money and a reduced voting share.

Parish is 100% to blame for this c**k up but he blames everyone except himself.

He needs to man up and accept his responsibility.

(21-07-2025, 09:48 AM)JWJW Wrote: The CAS will not rule on the punishment either........their job is to decide based on the rules.

If the rules are broken or not is all they will preside over.

The rules will be the UEFA rules, the ones which UEFA said CPFC broke.

Its quite pointless, unless you want to be "seen" to be going through the process to cover your own arse and trying to blame others....................

(21-07-2025, 09:50 AM)JWJW Wrote: And that is what I see this is.........purely a smoke and mirrors deflection to try to deflect blame on others.............the blame lies solely on CPFC for breaking the rules.