Champions League - Europa League - Conference League

[Passing Ship]

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.

And if CAS decides that no rules were broken, or if any transgression was minor, unintentional or unavoidable, and orders that either UEFA rescind their decision or impose a fine rather than demotion, will you accept that?

Yes of course.

But remember, the CAS cannot invent new rules or change the rules or ask for bending of the rules.  They only go on the rules in place at the time.

They are not interested in fiction, what other clubs did, whats in letters that has nothing to do the CPFC.  They will simply apply the UEFA rules and see if UEFA were correct in their determination of CPFC braking the UEFA rules.

Its that simple.  

Will you accept its completely and totally CPFC fault if the CAS agrees with UEFA ?

No, and nor will Palace because it isn’t. What I am sure they would then do is accept the ruling but, probably via the FA, push for the rules to be revised due to them being unfit for purpose.

They may well then seek legal redress and claim for compensation for the losses they would suffer. Who from might be quite interesting. 

The only way Palace lose is if CAS, probably reluctantly, accept that whilst the rules are badly written they must be applied. Writing bad rules has consequences.

[camt1395]

The article 5 tests are unchanged in the latest regulations. The addition was the March 1st deadline for compliance. The letter from CFCB was not setting the rules, but clarifying to clubs the criteria they would use to measure compliance against tests in the rules - tests which have not changed since that letter.

[wassy04]

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.

And if CAS decides that no rules were broken, or if any transgression was minor, unintentional or unavoidable, and orders that either UEFA rescind their decision or impose a fine rather than demotion, will you accept that?

Yes of course.

But remember, the CAS cannot invent new rules or change the rules or ask for bending of the rules.  They only go on the rules in place at the time.

They are not interested in fiction, what other clubs did, whats in letters that has nothing to do the CPFC.  They will simply apply the UEFA rules and see if UEFA were correct in their determination of CPFC braking the UEFA rules.

Its that simple.  

Will you accept its completely and totally CPFC fault if the CAS agrees with UEFA ?

No, and nor will Palace because it isn’t. What I am sure they would then do is accept the ruling but, probably via the FA, push for the rules to be revised due to them being unfit for purpose.

They may well then seek legal redress and claim for compensation for the losses they would suffer. Who from might be quite interesting. 

The only way Palace lose is if CAS, probably reluctantly, accept that whilst the rules are badly written they must be applied. Writing bad rules has consequences.

Cheers Steve

[Sausage Roll]

I wish Passing Ship would pass off.

[wassy04]

I wish Passing Ship would pass off.

Yeah, he is talking a lot of ship.

[Sausage Roll]

I wish Passing Ship would pass off.

Yeah, he is talking a lot of ship.

It's about time for him to bow out.

[McDurban]

I wish Passing Ship would pass off.

Yeah, he is talking a lot of ship.

It's about time for him to bow out.

Like Palace, out of the Europe League.
When that happens, maybe Forest should say they are happy with the Conference and Palace get fckall.

[stirred]

I wish Passing Ship would pass off.

Yeah, he is talking a lot of ship.

It's about time for him to bow out.

I’ll write astern response if he comes back

[BadDog]

I wish Passing Ship would pass off.

Yeah, he is talking a lot of ship.

It's about time for him to bow out.

I’ll write astern response if he comes back

I hope Palace don't have a fire ''Sail'' if they get demoted.

[Passing Ship]

The article 5 tests are unchanged in the latest regulations.  The addition was the March 1st deadline for compliance. The letter from CFCB was not setting the rules, but clarifying to clubs the criteria they would use to measure compliance against tests in the rules - tests which have not changed since that letter.

When year old “clarification” is completely different to that which is in the rules then there has been no clarification at all. There’s been misleading guidance that any competent lawyer would tear to shreds. 

Can I respectfully suggest you reread the rules, objectively and without red glasses on. 

I am not a Palace “fan”! I am a football fan who admires what Palace have done in recent years and was delighted for them when they won the cup. I like the stand Parish has made against multi club ownership and corruption in football. Seeing them cheated of their prize is offensive, not just to their fans but to every genuine football fan.

[Passing Ship]

One problem for Palace could be the information supplied to Companies House in the UK. If you follow the trail of companies that make up Crystal Palace only one person is named as the person with significant control...... John Textor!

Untrue. 

You are looking in the wrong place. Try here:-

You will see Textor resigned as a Director last month.

[stefanduma]

One problem for Palace could be the information supplied to Companies House in the UK. If you follow the trail of companies that make up Crystal Palace only one person is named as the person with significant control...... John Textor!

Untrue. 

You are looking in the wrong place. Try here:-


You will see Textor resigned as a Director last month.

He might have resigned last month but on March 1st he was still registered as a Director.