Champions League - Europa League - Conference League

[ormerdonkey]

Still nothing on the CAS website for a hearing

Last of the 1st round of qualification matches is today for conference league, something needs to be definitive in the media sooner then later

Parish and team have probably emailed their appeal to info@cas.org ..

[Sausage Roll]

Still nothing on the CAS website for a hearing

Last of the 1st round of qualification matches is today for conference league, something needs to be definitive in the media sooner then later

August 4th is the draw for the Conference League qualifying round so that's the latest it can realistically be is August 3rd (and I'm not sure that's realistic).

So that's a maximum 17 more days.

If they think they'll win, is the date of the draw a barrier? It'd be someone else's problem.

I can't see how they'd be allowed to drag it on beyond that. Whoever the opponent is would need to know if they're playing us or Palace. 

Apparently it'll be fast-tracked by CAS but as yet they've not made their appeal. Well it's not been reported anyway.

[Salvatore Matrecano]

Should Palace overturn the decision do we have a right to appeal the appeal?
I hope we wouldn’t but Im pretty sure we would do so if it happens. Be yet another delay of course.

[Fumanchew]

A lot of our media are saying that as long as it’s a singular argument then it should, that uefas rules are vague but then we know CAS hasn’t changed the ruiling of uefa. Pundits and the like expect it CAS to side with palace though which is strange

[Sausage Roll]

Should Palace overturn the decision do we have a right to appeal the appeal?
I hope we wouldn’t but Im pretty sure we would do so if it happens. Be yet another delay of course.

I don't think so. None of the other clubs who've lost their appeal have done so (though I realise this wouldn't be us losing the appeal).

[Salvatore Matrecano]

A lot of our media are saying that as long as it’s a singular argument then it should, that uefas rules are vague but then we know CAS hasn’t changed the ruiling of uefa. Pundits and the like expect it CAS to side with palace though which is strange

Most pundits don’t have a clue and are blissfully unaware 3 teams appeals have already been rejected.
Just think it would be typical for them to make an exception this time.

[Sausage Roll]

A lot of our media are saying that as long as it’s a singular argument then it should, that uefas rules are vague but then we know CAS hasn’t changed the ruiling of uefa. Pundits and the like expect it CAS to side with palace though which is strange

I'm not sure how pundits expect CAS to side with Palace.

My understanding is that their job is to ensure the rules have been correctly applied. I'm not sure what evidence Palace could present to CAS to convince them that they hadn't.

As at March 1st John Textor held 43% ownership of Palace and 77% of Lyon. Those are facts. That's when the deadline was so whatever has happened afterwards should be irrelevant.

This is the statement the CFCB made:

"Consequently, the CFCB First Chamber pursued the assessment of the documentation submitted by Olympique Lyonnais and Crystal Palace and concluded that the clubs breached, as at 1 March 2025, the multi-club ownership criteria foreseen in Art 5.01 of the UEFA Club Competition Regulations."

I'm not sure what Palace could present to CAS to convince them that the CFCB got it wrong. Their fans keep banging on that they're not part of an MCO group but as of March 1st Textor owned significant shareholdings in both clubs. Again, that's a fact. Just because the clubs didn't co-operate or share resources or whatever that doesn't change anything.

I'm still not counting any chickens regarding Forest ending up in the Europa League - I've followed Forest for too long - but I just don't see how logically CAS can rule in Palace's favour. Particularly given that they've already rejected three similar appeals.

[ormerdonkey]

A lot of our media are saying that as long as it’s a singular argument then it should, that uefas rules are vague but then we know CAS hasn’t changed the ruiling of uefa. Pundits and the like expect it CAS to side with palace though which is strange

I'm not sure how pundits expect CAS to side with Palace.

My understanding is that their job is to ensure the rules have been correctly applied. I'm not sure what evidence Palace could present to CAS to convince them that they hadn't.

At March 1st John Textor held 43% ownership of Palace and 77% of Lyon. Those are facts. That's when the deadline was so whatever has happened afterwards should be irrelevant.

This is the statement the CFCB made:

"Consequently, the CFCB First Chamber pursued the assessment of the documentation submitted by Olympique Lyonnais and Crystal Palace and concluded that the clubs breached, as at 1 March 2025, the multi-club ownership criteria foreseen in Art 5.01 of the UEFA Club Competition Regulations."

I'm not sure what Palace could present to CAS to convince them that the CFCB got it wrong.

I expect that they will argue that despite a 43% ownership, Textors controlling stake was only 25% and that value doesn't breach the regulations as it doesn't indicate a substantial control on operations at the club. They would have saved themselves a lot of time if they had just followed the letter of the rule and not assumed they wouldn't be viewed as in breach because they felt they weren't.. If only these multi million pound operations could afford to employ a legal team..

[Sausage Roll]

A lot of our media are saying that as long as it’s a singular argument then it should, that uefas rules are vague but then we know CAS hasn’t changed the ruiling of uefa. Pundits and the like expect it CAS to side with palace though which is strange

I'm not sure how pundits expect CAS to side with Palace.

My understanding is that their job is to ensure the rules have been correctly applied. I'm not sure what evidence Palace could present to CAS to convince them that they hadn't.

At March 1st John Textor held 43% ownership of Palace and 77% of Lyon. Those are facts. That's when the deadline was so whatever has happened afterwards should be irrelevant.

This is the statement the CFCB made:

"Consequently, the CFCB First Chamber pursued the assessment of the documentation submitted by Olympique Lyonnais and Crystal Palace and concluded that the clubs breached, as at 1 March 2025, the multi-club ownership criteria foreseen in Art 5.01 of the UEFA Club Competition Regulations."

I'm not sure what Palace could present to CAS to convince them that the CFCB got it wrong.

I expect that they will argue that despite a 43% ownership, Textors controlling stake was only 25% and that value doesn't breach the regulations as it doesn't indicate a substantial control on operations at the club. They would have saved themselves a lot of time if they had just followed the letter of the rule and not assumed they wouldn't be viewed as in breach because they felt they weren't.. If only these multi million pound operations could afford to employ a legal team..

Yes I think that's their argument but I don't think it holds water because CFCB ruled that the 43% meant that Textor could exercise decisive control. Just because he hadn't done so yet it doesn't means he couldn't have. 

This is an interesting exchange on Dale Johnson's (ESPN journo) Twitter:

Dale Johnson
@DaleJohnsonESPN
And this is where Crystal Palace have the major issue.
Regs state that if just one of the listed indicators are triggered, the CFCB considers that a decisive influence.
Having 30% or more of the club’s total shares is one of the indicators (which John Textor had on March 1).

Brian Greenwood
@PopeyeSeven
CFCB turned out the Irish team because of a decisive influence in both clubs… Both Textor and Palace have confirmed in speech and writing that Textor has never had a decisive influence at Selhurst, as certified by all the directors at Palace….facts should come before a belief .

Dale Johnson
@DaleJohnsonESPN
I get that, but if you go purely on the regulations as detailed, UEFA determines the simple fact of a shareholding above 30% as decisive influence and a trigger.

[ormerdonkey]

A lot of our media are saying that as long as it’s a singular argument then it should, that uefas rules are vague but then we know CAS hasn’t changed the ruiling of uefa. Pundits and the like expect it CAS to side with palace though which is strange

I'm not sure how pundits expect CAS to side with Palace.

My understanding is that their job is to ensure the rules have been correctly applied. I'm not sure what evidence Palace could present to CAS to convince them that they hadn't.

At March 1st John Textor held 43% ownership of Palace and 77% of Lyon. Those are facts. That's when the deadline was so whatever has happened afterwards should be irrelevant.

This is the statement the CFCB made:

"Consequently, the CFCB First Chamber pursued the assessment of the documentation submitted by Olympique Lyonnais and Crystal Palace and concluded that the clubs breached, as at 1 March 2025, the multi-club ownership criteria foreseen in Art 5.01 of the UEFA Club Competition Regulations."

I'm not sure what Palace could present to CAS to convince them that the CFCB got it wrong.

I expect that they will argue that despite a 43% ownership, Textors controlling stake was only 25% and that value doesn't breach the regulations as it doesn't indicate a substantial control on operations at the club. They would have saved themselves a lot of time if they had just followed the letter of the rule and not assumed they wouldn't be viewed as in breach because they felt they weren't.. If only these multi million pound operations could afford to employ a legal team..

Yes I think that's their argument but I don't think it holds water because CFCB ruled that the 43% meant that Textor could exercise decisive control. Just because he hadn't done so yet it doesn't means he couldn't have. 

This is an interesting exchange on Dale Johnson's (ESPN journo) Twitter:

Dale Johnson
@DaleJohnsonESPN
And this is where Crystal Palace have the major issue.
Regs state that if just one of the listed indicators are triggered, the CFCB considers that a decisive influence.
Having 30% or more of the club’s total shares is one of the indicators (which John Textor had on March 1).

Brian Greenwood
@PopeyeSeven
CFCB turned out the Irish team because of a decisive influence in both clubs… Both Textor and Palace have confirmed in speech and writing that Textor has never had a decisive influence at Selhurst, as certified by all the directors at Palace….facts should come before a belief .

Dale Johnson
@DaleJohnsonESPN
I get that, but if you go purely on the regulations as detailed, UEFA determines the simple fact of a shareholding above 30% as decisive influence and a trigger.

Not a lawyer but I guess they fail on point 2

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:

1. No club participating in a UEFA club competition may, either directly or indirectly:
   
   1. hold or deal in the securities or shares of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition;
      
   2. be a member of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition;
      
   3. 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
      
   4. have any power whatsoever in the management, administration and/or sporting performance of any other club participating in a UEFA club competition.
      
2. 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.
   
3. 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:
   
   1. holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights;
      
   2. having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club;
      
   3. 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
      
   4. being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision‑making of the club.
      

[Sausage Roll]

I think you could argue they fail on point 3.4 as well. How can someone with 43% and 77% shareholdings in two clubs *not* be able to exercise a decisive influence in decision-making?

[ormerdonkey]

From memory because you would need to increase your voting rights share to have control. Which you could do by buying the shares of another board member. So whilst possible by the wording of “by any means” that’s a pretty vague technicality as I can’t buy something that someone doesn’t want to sell.

Unless the focus of this is all wrong and they are out because he has/had that control of Lyon at the date of the deadline and they are out because of that control