Champions League - Europa League - Conference League

[Passing Ship]

My understanding is that UEFA's definition of decisive control relates to percentage shareholding rather than voting rights. As at March 1st Textor owned 43% of Palace and 77% of Lyon. UEFA rules that was enough to be defined as decisive control of both clubs, hence Palace lost their place.

That though isn’t what the rules say. The definition in rule C (i)  says “holding a majority of the shareholders voting rights”. It’s there in black and white. Eagle Holdings, of which Textor is the majority shareholder, owned 43% of Palace but held only 25% of the voting rights. So he neither held a majority of the shares nor a majority of the voting rights. 

I can quite see why Palace believed these rules had no application to them.

[Sausage Roll]

My understanding is that UEFA's definition of decisive control relates to percentage shareholding rather than voting rights. As at March 1st Textor owned 43% of Palace and 77% of Lyon. UEFA rules that was enough to be defined as decisive control of both clubs, hence Palace lost their place.

That though isn’t what the rules say. The definition in rule C (i)  says “holding a majority of the shareholders voting rights”. It’s there in black and white. Eagle Holdings, of which Textor is the majority shareholder, owned 43% of Palace but held only 25% of the voting rights. So he neither held a majority of the shares nor a majority of the voting rights. 

I can quite see why Palace believed these rules had no application to them.

UEFA clearly have their reasons for having made the decision to demote Palace. Hopefully that decision will be rubber-stamped by CAS. Palace can do one.

[camt1395]

I assume the criterion they will have used is just below that: “*OR*
being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club.” 

A fairly subjective, but also quite broad test. One of the things that may have persuaded the CFCB that John Textor meets that test is him having the single largest shareholding in the football club (on March 1st). Note it doesn’t say ‘has exercised’, just ‘able to exercise’.

Personally, I think the CAS appeal is a coin-flip at this stage.

[Passing Ship]

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.

I think Palace might appoint you as their legal representative.

I was gonna stick my two pennuth worth in, but whats the point? I know next to nothing about the actual facts of the matter apart from Palace were partly owned by some bloke who also owned Lyon. Both Palace and Lyon qualified for the Europa league, but Palace got booted out of it due to the above mentioned bloke having majority shares in both clubs. Then Lyon got relegated due to some financial issues with the French authorities and were kicked out of the Europa League. Palace were re-instated. Then Lyon got re-instated to the top league and their place was given back to them in the Europa League. Palace got re-booted out.
Forest qualified for the European Conference League through their league position and have done nothing wrong. Someone at our club wrote to UEFA asking for clarification as to where our club stand as one minute we are in the Conference and the next we are in Europa. All of a sudden, Palace supporters start blaming Forest for their own club ownership incompetence and blame us for getting them kicked out of the Europa. Then their top owner Steve Parish, jumps on the bandwagon and starts making disparaging comments aimed at our owner, who has had nothing to do with any of this, despite the fact UEFA sent Palace numerous emails about the matter, of which none were dealt with. The problems stem from the ownership at Palace. The same ownership, that instead of holding their hands up and admitting they f****d up, would rather sully the name of other clubs and their owners.

For what its worth, I am of the opinion that Palace won the FA Cup fair and square and should be allowed to enter the Europa League on that merit. That is for the benefit of their fans, the normal people that go and support their club, the same as the majority of fans on here do with Forest. However, the fact that their Chairman/Owner, whatever he is, is going about this by dragging our club through the mud, im sorry but they can now go and f**k themselves

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but it seems to be one built on the reports of what the rules say, rather than what they actually say. 

Nobody will know for sure what correspondence passed between UEFA and any of the clubs involved unless and until they are made public. Which might eventually happen but not yet as to do so would prejudice any possible legal actions. Until then all that exists is speculation, both in the media and online.

[Passing Ship]

I assume the criterion they will have used is just below that: “*OR*
being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club.” 

A fairly subjective, but also quite broad test. One of the things that may have persuaded the CFCB that John Textor meets that test is him having the single largest shareholding in the football club (on March 1st). Note it doesn’t say ‘has exercised’, just ‘able to exercise’.

Personally, I think the CAS appeal is a coin-flip at this stage.

When you hold only 25% of the voting rights, and it’s been clear for some time that Textor was frustrated at not being able to exercise decisive influence, any decent lawyer should be able to throw enough doubt on the interpretation of that rule as to make it null and void. 

Added to all the other reasons why Palace were not, and never have been, part of a multi club group to rely on a dubious interpretation of a technicality to justify such a decision seems unlikely to satisfy any objective determination by an independent tribunal such as CAS. 

Only time will tell but this is very far from over. In my opinion.

[Passing Ship]

My understanding is that UEFA's definition of decisive control relates to percentage shareholding rather than voting rights. As at March 1st Textor owned 43% of Palace and 77% of Lyon. UEFA rules that was enough to be defined as decisive control of both clubs, hence Palace lost their place.

That though isn’t what the rules say. The definition in rule C (i)  says “holding a majority of the shareholders voting rights”. It’s there in black and white. Eagle Holdings, of which Textor is the majority shareholder, owned 43% of Palace but held only 25% of the voting rights. So he neither held a majority of the shares nor a majority of the voting rights. 

I can quite see why Palace believed these rules had no application to them.

UEFA clearly have their reasons for having made the decision to demote Palace. Hopefully that decision will be rubber-stamped by CAS. Palace can do one.

Sentiments which doubtless will be very popular in Nottingham but unlikely to weigh heavily in Lausanne.

[camt1395]

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.

[ac_vodka]

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

[stefanduma]

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.

[stirred]

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.

It’s like if Parish was that guy at the Coldplay concert he’d be saying it was a deepfake, then the next day she was feinting and he was just catching her, then that she had something in her eye, and that Nottingham Forest were controlling the camera.

[Username]

I assume the criterion they will have used is just below that: “*OR*
being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club.” 

A fairly subjective, but also quite broad test. One of the things that may have persuaded the CFCB that John Textor meets that test is him having the single largest shareholding in the football club (on March 1st). Note it doesn’t say ‘has exercised’, just ‘able to exercise’.

Personally, I think the CAS appeal is a coin-flip at this stage.

When you hold only 25% of the voting rights, and it’s been clear for some time that Textor was frustrated at not being able to exercise decisive influence, any decent lawyer should be able to throw enough doubt on the interpretation of that rule as to make it null and void. 

Added to all the other reasons why Palace were not, and never have been, part of a multi club group to rely on a dubious interpretation of a technicality to justify such a decision seems unlikely to satisfy any objective determination by an independent tribunal such as CAS. 

Only time will tell but this is very far from over. In my opinion.

No idea why two Palace fans are coming on here to have this conversation. 

Do Man City have the opportunity to have the final replayed from the point Henderson should have been sent off?

[camt1395]

You got me. Joined the forum seven years ago just in case this happened.